Sri.Katragadda Dasharatha Ramaiah

Page 1 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT :: BHONGIR

Monday, this the 23 rd of January, 2023

Present:-Sri KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

At Bhongir.

SESSIONS CASE No.189 of 2016

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet vide PRC No.15 of 2016 dated 13.07.2016)

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Choutuppal Police station. …. Complainant

AND

A1.Chintakindi Anjaiah S/o Late Pedda Sathaiah, Age: 62 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bharathnagar, Choutuppal (V & M), Nalgonda District.

A2.Chinthakindi Gandhi @ Sridhar S/o Anjaiah, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o Bharathnagar, Choutuppal ( V & M), Nalgonda District. …. Accused

Charge:U/sec 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, accused A1 & A2 found not guilty of the offences under 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and he is in accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Srikanth, learned counsel for accused and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

-:JUDGMENT:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Choutuppal Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offences under Sections 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.91 of 2016 of Choutuppal Police Station.

Page 2 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.04.2016 at about 19.00 hrs Yellanki Saidulu / Pw1 came to Choutuppal PS and lodged English written complaint stating that on 22.04.2016 at about 6.30 hrs he along with his parents Muthyalu, Achamma / Pws.2 & 3 went to their fields situated at Choutuppal to level their land, lay boundary stones, meanwhile some persons namely Chinthakindi Anajaiah, Chinthakindi Gandhi @

Sridhar, Chinthakindi Ansuya & Chintakindi Ramulamma attacked on Pws.1 to 3 with sticks beating them indiscriminately with an intention to kill them as a result Pws.2 & 3 sustained injuries. Hence Pw1 filed complaint against above said persons requesting to take necessary legal action in this regard.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw10 registered a case in Cr.No.91 of 2016, U/Sec. 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.During investigation, Pw10 examined and recorded the statement of

Pw1 and visited Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad where

Pw10 examined injured persons Pws.2 & 3 and recorded their statements.

Later Pw10 visited scene of offence sitauted at the land of Pw1, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized two sticks in the presence of Pw8 & Lw9 after drawing rough sketch. During further investigation, Pw10 also examined Pws.4 to 7 and recorded their statements. On 03.05.2016 Pw10 apprehended accused / A1 & A2 and sent them to court for judicial custody. Later Pw10 received medical certificates from Lw10 who opined that Pw2 sustained “Grevious injuries” and Pw1 sustained simple injuries. On completion of investigation Pw10 filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 for the offence U/secs 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 & A2 and registered the case as PRC No. 15 of 2016. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused, as contemplated under

Page 3 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, vide committal order dated

13.07.2016 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered it as S.C No.189 of 2016 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

6.On appearance of accused / A1 & A2 before this Court, they were examined U/sec 228 Cr.P.C. Framed charges for the offences U/Sec. 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The substance of accusation made against accused was read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined Pw1 to

Pw10 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 on behalf of prosecution.

[a] The learned counsel for prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 10 and relied on their evidence to establish the guilt of the accused persons.

The defacto complainant examined as Pw1 in his chief deposed that he is cultivating their agricultural land of Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.292, 301, 302 & 305 out of which an extent of Ac.0.29 gts is registered on Pw2’s name.

Pw1 further deposed that on 22.04.2016 at about 6.00 am while he along with Pws.2 & 3 were in their agricultural land leveling, laying boundary stones, at that time A1 & A2 came there and beat them with sticks. Pw1 specifically testified that accused beat him on his head causing bleeding injury, beat Pw2 on left hand causing fracture injury and Pw3 on her back.

Pw1 testified that this incident was witnessed by Pws.4 to 7 and on hearing their hues & cries neighboring land people came to scene but accused fled away from there. In further chief, Pw1 testified that from scene they went to Police Station, from where they went to Government

Hospital for treatment and thereafter, they took treatment at Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad. Pw1 categorically testified that A1 & A2 demanding them to give their land, bet them in an attempt to kill them

Page 4 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

with sticks Mo’s I & II to grab their land as it is adjacent to accused land with sticks. Pw1 deposed that after getting discharge from hospital on 25.04.2006 he lodged Ex.P1.

[b]Pw2 in his chief testified that about 5 yrs back while he along with Pws.1 & 3 were laying boundary stones in their fields, A1 & A2 came there and bet them with sticks as a result Pw2 sustained fracture injury.

Pw2 also testified that when neighboring people came to scene accused fled away, thereafter they went to Police station where police referred them to Government Hospital from there they went to Private Hospital at

Hyderabad for treatment. Pw2 deposed that they were in hospital for 4 days and A1 & A2 bet them claiming that land belongs to them. Pw3 in her chief deposed in similar lines as that of Pw2 as to alleged assault of A1 &

A2 stating that accused bet on her back with sticks. Pws.2 & 3 deposed that the alleged land belongs to them. Pw4 in his chief testified that as per instructions of his owner I.e Pw1 he went to Thangadipally road at

Choutuppal with JCB to level Pw1’s agricultural land and while he was doing work A1 & A2 came there and bet Pws.1 & 2 with sticks as a result

Pw1 sustained injury on his head and Pw2 got injury on his hand. Pw4 categorically testified that accused threatened him as such he left the place and he was examined by police after four days of incident.

[c]During further examination of prosecution witnesses, Pw5 who was cited as eye witness deposed in his chief that in the month of April 2016, on one day during morning hours he heard some commotionat

Pw2’s land and when Pw5 went there, he saw A1 & A2 beating Pws.1 to 3 with sticks as a result Pw2 sustained fracture injury and Pw1 sustained head injury.. Pw5 also testified that A1 & A2 fled away from sceneas some other persons also came to scene and separated accused from Pws.1 to 3.

Pw5 further deposed that when Pws.1 to 3 were at their land A1 & A2 interfered in their possession and bet them. Pw6 another eye witness turned hostile deposing that he came to know in evening hours after

Page 5 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

supplying milk to some of villagers that there was quarrel between accused with Pws.1 to 3. Pws.6 & 7 testified that they do not know who sustained injuries or as to why such incident took place and they were not examined by police.

[d]The sole panch witness examined by prosecution as Pw8 testified that about 6 yrs back, one day police Choutuppal called him to

Pw2’s agricultural land and conducted scene of offence panchanama seizing two sticks Mo’s I & II in his presence as there was some quarrel between accused and Pws.1 to 3. . Pw9 testified that she is working as

Casualty Medical Officer at Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Kothapet since 2016 and all case records, case history of patients will be in her custody. Pw9 testified that Lw10 who worked as Resident Medical Officer from 2016 to 2017, had issued medical certificates of Pws.1 & 2 vide MLC No.331/2016 identifying signatures of Lw10. Pw10 the investigating officer reiterated the contents of his charge sheet as to the investigation done by him.

Basing on the above, the prosecution argued that the accusations made against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused shall be convicted for the offences alleged to have committed by accused.

[e]The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that accused had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 10 and the same cannot be established by the evidence brought on record. During cross, Pw1 admitted that A1 is his maternal uncle and about 6 to 7 yrs back he lost passbooks of his land and that A1 is in possession, cultivating the alleged land. Pw1 admitted that he do not know whether extent of land or survey numbers were mentioned in Ex.P1 or not and since police did not entertain their report, they approached DSP & SP, thereafter their report was registered. Pw1 categorically deposed that on 25.04.2016 at 10.30 am they went to police station and met SI of Police and on 22.04.2016 he lodged report but SI of police didn’t register the same but he do not know whether such incidents

Page 6 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

with police were mentioned in Ex.P1 or not. Pw1 admitted that distance from scene of offence to Choutuppal PS is about one kilometer and on the date of incident they went to Police station at about 6.30 am, from there to

Government Hospital within half an hour.

[f]During further cross of Pw1, categorically testified that on their own accord they went to Government hospital, where his head injury was stitched between 7.30 am to 8.00 am on the same day, from there they went to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, adding that above facts were mentioned in Ex.P1. Pw1 admitted that he got prepared Ex.P1 at Hyderabad through advocates by name Konda Srinivas of Choutuppal and Mohan, having his office at Hyderabad. Pw1 admitted that he stated before police that his parents sold Ac.0.18 gts to A1 in addition to which, A1 is in possession of remaining Ac.0.22 gts land and A1 is cultivating the same. Pw1 also admitted that he stated before police that land was given on lease to A1 but police did not recorded the same and admitted that he didn’t referred about lease in Ex.P1. Pw1 denied that they sold entire extent of land to A1 and handed over passbooks to him. Pw1 deposed that he did not said

before police that he was laying boundary stones for Ac.2.00 gts of land

and they stay at a distance of ½ km from land in Choutuppal adding that at the time of alleged incident they were staying in their old house as their new house was constructed in 2018. Pw1 admitted that Pw5 is his brother in law and resident of Thangadpally village.

[g]During cross, Pw2 admitted that A1 is brother of his wife / Pw3 and after marriage Pw2 shifted from Shilveru village and resided along with A1 in his in-laws house for about 15 yrs till he constructed a house.

Pw2 testified that he has six daughters and one son. Pw2 testified that he did toddy tapping, agriculture in his and his in-laws lands. Pw2 testified that about 10 yrs back he went to Dubai and stayed there for four months admitting that he took hand loan of Rs.25,000/- from A1 at the time of going to Dubai and also took Rs.60,000/- from A1 after returning from

Page 7 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

Dubai at the time of performing his third daughter’s marriage, also admitted that A1 performed his fourth daughter’s marriage. Pw2 admitted that he handed over passbooks to A1 and since then A1 is in possession of his land. Pw2 admitted that he fell off from tree while tapping toddy about 12 yrs back and sustained fracture injury to his right leg but denied that he also sustained fracture injury to his hand at the same time. Pw2 categorically testified that police never examined him.

[h]The mother of Pw1 who was examined as Pw3, in her cross testified that A1 is her younger brother and after her marriage with Pw2 they stayed in her parents house with A1 as A1 was a child by then. Pw3 though deposed that A1 did not gave any money to Pw2 when he went to

Dubai about 28 yrs ago but admitted that A1 gave Rs.60,000/- to them while performing their third daughter’s marriage in different spells. Pw3 added that for the said amount they gave Ac.0.18 gts land to A1 and passbooks of disputed land are with A1 as they handed over it about 30 yrs back to A1. Pw3 admitted that A1 is in possession of the land from past 29 yrs and A1 also used to pay lease amount but there is no lease document.

[I]During further cross, Pw3 categorically testified that they did not inform A1 prior to entering the alleged land expressing their intention to clean the land and after galata accused went to police station at first instance, thereafter they went to police station. Pw3 testified that after seeing them, police referred them to Government Hospital but police did not gave any requisition while referring them to hospital, from there they went to Private Hospital at Hyderabad. Pw3 testified that after taking treatment as inpatient for 2 – 3 days, on returning she along with Pws.1,2, her six daughters and two son-in-laws went to Police station to lodge complaint. Pw3 categorically mentioned that her daughter / Prameela scribed the report and police did not examine her. Pw3 admitted that A1 performed their fourth daughter’s marriage and Pw2 is illiterate as he

Page 8 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

affixes thumb impression and Pw2 sustained fracture injury to his waist when he fell off from toddy tree.

[j]Pw4 in his cross admitted that owner of JCB is one Sanjeeva

R/o Choutuppal who instructed him over phone to go to Pw1’s land on previous day itself but as it was late, Pw4 went to Pw1’s land on next day as his owner shown me the land in morning hours on the day of incident.

Pw4 testified that he didn’t verified whether the land belongs to Pw1 or not adding that initially Pw1 was only present, later A2 came there and while

A1 & A2 were beating Pws.1 & 2 came to the scene. Pw4 testified that accused beat Pws.1 & 2 with bamboo stick and when Pw2 came, accused pushed Pw2 as a result Pw2 sustained fracture to his hand. Pw4 admitted that he do not know what happened after he left the scene and he was examined in his house by two constables. Pw4 testified that he made three signatures on his statement.

[k]Pw5 in his cross, admitted that Pw2 is his father-in-law as he married Pw2’s elder daughter and shifted to Choutuppal in 1986. Pw5 testified that daily at about 6.00 am he open his shop which is at a distance of ¼ km from his house and also near to Pw2’s land. Pw5 testified that A1 & Pw2 are in joint possession and cultivating the alleged land. Pw5 testified that there were about 5 to 6 persons present at the scene by the time he reached but he cannot give their names. Pw5 testified that on the day of alleged incident, he saw some galata from a distance of 100 yards.

Pw5 testified that he was examined by police at his house on next day of incident and he stated before police that by the time he went to scene accused were separated from Pws.1 to 3. Pw5 admitted that he do not know land transactions between A1 & Pw2 & Pw3.

[l]During cross of Pw6 he admitted that he did not witness any incident nor police examined him and Pw7 admitted in cross that he do not know anything about this case. Pw8 in his cross testified that police called

Page 9 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

him while he was walking nearby scene of offence and when he visited, he saw five persons. Pw8 testified that scene of offence panchanama was scribed by Pw10 and that Pws.1 to 3 are having land disputes with accused as they are relatives of each other. Pw9 admitted that he did not file any document to show that she is working as Casualty Medical Officer at Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Kothapet or that Lw10 worked during 2016 – 2017 period at their hospital. Pw9 admitted that she cannot affirm the contents of medical certificates except Lw10 signatures. Pw10, the investigating officer in his cross admitted that there is a delay of two & half days in lodging Ex.P1 without any reasons for delay and there are land disputes between accused and Pws.1 & 2.

[m]The investigating officer I.e Pw10 in his cross, categorically admitted that she did not refer the injured to hospital adding that injured themselves went to hospital and he did not collect inpatient record from

Sai Sanjeevani Hospital. Pw10 admitted that she did not inquired as to endorsement of Lw10 on Exs.P10 & P11 as to patient history and joining time is mentioned as 5.30 pm on 22.04.2016 in Exs.P10 & P11. Pw10 admitted that there is no mention of specific place of injury on Pw1’s head and incident occurred at 0630 hrs on 22.04.2016. Pw1 admitted that Pw5 is son-in-law of Pw1 but he do not know where Pws.1 & 2 got their first aid

before joining in Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals. Pw10 specifically testified that

he did not ascertain as to who was in actual possession of alleged land.

The learned counsel for the defence strenuously argued that accused never committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as it suffers with several material discrepancies, improvements brought to the fore in cross of Pws.1 to 10 and in view of the hostility of the independent witnesses. Hence, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Accused

No.1 & 2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the

Page 10 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused A1 & A2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

9.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fecund in proving the guilt of accused A1 & A2 for the offences under sections 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

(I)On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses brought on record, it is noted that the main prosecution witnesses I.e Pws.1 to Pw3 had deposed in similar lines with each other as to the occurrence of the alleged incident that, on 22.04.2016 at about 6.00 am while they were in their agricultural land to level and lay boundary stones accused persons / A1 & A2 came there, beat them with sticks as a result Pw1 sustained injuries on his head, Pw2 sustained fracture injury to his left hand wrist and stick marks on Pw3’s back. In addition to the above, Pws.1 to 3 also alleged accused A1 & A2 attacked them with an intention to kill them to grab Pws.1 to 3 land as it is located adjacent to accused land. It is also argued by the prosecution that the said alleged incident was also corroborated by independent witnesses

Pws.4 & 5 who testified before this court that they saw accused beating

Pws.1 to 3 at accused land.

(II)At the outset, the the main contention putforth by the defence counsel is that the land at scene of offence where the alleged incident occurred was actually belongs to and in possession of accused /A1 and that, it was Pws.1 to 3 who illegally trespassed into the said land, who tried to occupy the same by laying boundary stones without any intimation to or knowledge of accused persons had ignited the tussle between Pws.1 to 3 with accused persons. During cross examination of main material

Page 11 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

witnesses Pws.1 to 3 and their categorical admissions, it clearly elicits that about few years back while Pw2 was going to Dubai, he had obtained

Rs.25,000/- as loan from Accused / A1 and after returning from Dubai,

Pws.2 & 3 performed marriage of their third daughter at which time, again

Pw2 took an amount of Rs.60,000/- from A1 and in addition to the above,

Pws.2 & 3 categorically admitted that, it was A1 who performed marriage of their fourth daughter itself establishes the relationship among accused with Pws.1 to 3 family, so also the financial transactions of Pw.2 & 3 with accused. It is also elicited through Pws.2 & 3 that for the amount they received from A1, they sold some extent of land out of their total Ac.1.18 gts land and also an extent of Ac.0.22 gts in favor of accused / A1 accordingly A1 got into possession over the alleged disputed land.

(III)It is pertinent to mention here that none of the prosecution witnesses, in particularly Pws.1 to 3 had mentioned anywhere about their relationship with accused persons and came up with different versions as to the point in whose possession the alleged land including its passbooks are there, as Pw1 who filed present complaint, testified before this court that he lost passbooks of their land about 6 -7 years back but in contra to the same, his parents I.e Pws.2 & 3 / injured categorically admitted that the passbooks of alleged lands were handed over to A1, specifically Pw3 mentioned that about 30 years back passbooks were handed over to A1, since then A1 is in continuous possession and cultivation of alleged land. It is also noted that, Pws.1 to 3 categorically admitted that A1 is in possession, cultivating the said land also on lease by paying lease amount every year but the same was no where mentioned either in Ex.P1 or before police itself casts cloud as to who was infact trespassing into the alleged lands which were in possession of A1 from very long time, that too in the light of Pw3 statement that they didn’t informed accused about their visit to clean the alleged lands.

Page 12 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

(IV)More so, there is lot of ambiguous statements and improvements brought on record by Pws.1 to 3, to begin with, admission of Pw1 I.e the defacto complainant that Ex.P1 / Complaint was got scribed by two advocates at their Hyderabad’s office after lapse of 2 -3 days from the day of incident on the pretext that the delay was due to treatment in Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad is not plausible as Pw1 failed to provided his records of treatment as inpatient for three days, itself hints the intent of Pws.1 to 3 in filing the present case which also contradicts with the version of Pw3 I.e mother of defacto complainant testified in cross that she along with Pws.1,2, her six daughters and two son-in-laws went to Police station to lodge complaint which was scribed by her daughter by name

Pramila. In continuation, the versions of Pws.1 to 3 about visiting Police

Station on 22.04.2016 for lodging complaint also raises suspicion, as per

Pw1 on 22.04.2016 at about 6.30 am he went to lodge complaint but police didn’t register any case as such they approached DSP & SP, thereafter Police at Choutuppal received their complaint which is quite contra to his statement that on 25.04.2016 at 10.30 am they met SI of police at Chotuppal PS, then their complaint was registered, also Pw3 who specifically testified before this court that on the day of incident after galata accused went to police station at first instance, thereafter they went to police station but police did not register any case from either side.

(V)It is also crucial to note that, the subsequent events of taking first aid at Government hospital, Choutuppal and shifting injured persons to Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad also irreconcilable between Pws.1 & 3 as

Pw1 testified before this court that from police station they went to

Government Hospital, Choutuppal within ½ hr on their own accord for treatment, where “Pw1’s injury was stitched”but no medical record filed or asserts that Pw1 received sutures to his injury not even in Ex.P10/ medical certificate issued by Lw10 in which it was mentioned only as head injury. Whereas, Pw3 came up with totally different version who testified that after seeing them on the day of incident, police referred them to

Page 13 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

Government Hospital but police did not gave any requisition while referring them to hospital. As the prosecution relied on the evidence of

Pw9 who identified the signatures of Lw10 who issued Exs.P10 & P11 failed to elicit any other cogent evidence that Pws.1 & 2 were treated as “In

Patients” at Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals for three days as prosecution failed to produce any documents which were reportedly in possession of Pw9 or she is working as Casualty Medical Officer or Lw10 worked during 2016 – 2017 period at that hospital. Further, on plain perusal of Exs.P10 & P11 it reflects that they were issued on 22.04.2016 at 5.30 pm also incongruous with Pw1 version that they went to Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals after taking treatment at Government Hospital, Choutuppal and that assertion of Pw9 that she cannot affirm the contents of Exs.P10 & P11.

(VI)As per the contentions of defence counsel that the evidence of Pws.4 & 5 also suffers with severe inconsistency in view of admissions of Pw4 in his cross that his owner shown him Pw1’s land in morning hours on the day of incident but no where mentioned at what time he along with his owner been there with JCB to level the alleged land, in addition to the different version that initially Pw1 was only present, later A2 came there and while A1 & A2 were beating Pws.1 & 2 they came to the scene. More in specific, the version of Pw4 that accused pushed Pw2 as a result Pw2 sustained fracture to his hand creates ambiguity as to how Pw2 sustained fracture injury was it due to stick or when fell off as per Pw4’s version who was examined as eye witness in this case. Whereas, Pw5 who is none other than the son-in-law of Pw2& 3, comes with different versions as to his presence or witnessing the alleged incident who testified that there were about 5 to 6 persons present at the scene by the time he reached and on that day, he noticed some galata while he was going to open his shop. In view of aforesaid material discrepancies, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 do not instill confidence of this court.

Page 14 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

(VII) The learned Addl Public Prosecutor had relied on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 2000 (3) Crimes (SC) 2000 wherein it

was held that “Improvements which are details of examination in chief and cross examination cannot be termed as material improvements so as to discard the evidence” and “Minor Contradictions are bound to appear in statement of truthful witnesses, even if there is contradiction on any material point, that is no ground to reject whole testimony of such witness”. It was also held in 2000 (3) Crimes (SC) 2000 that “When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from the disclosed in his earliest statements, the case of prosecution becomes doubtful” which aptly suits to the given case in hand as the improvements which were brought on record by Pws.1 to 3, more particularly after lapse of more than five years in bringing specific instances cannot be considered as the same were ignored or forgotten at the time of filing Ex.P1 by Pw1, that too, when such complaint was got drafted by advocates in particular raises suspicion. Further, the discrepancies elicited by defence counsel are not minor in nature, but in fact they had impact no crucial points creating suspicion as to the mode of occurrence of incident or at who was the instigator for the such incident.

In light of aforesaid discussion the judgments reported in 2008 (1)

Supreme 294 & 1991 (5) MPLJ 878 as relied by the prosecution will not be applicable to the present case in hand.

(VIII) In furtherance to the aforesaid detailed discussion, the admission of

Pws.2 & 3 that they were not examined by police at any point of time, version of Pw4 that he was examined by two constables at his house, more particularly, the statement of Pw5 that he was examined on next day of incident do create ambiguity as to when and how the investigation began or their statements recorded. As admitted by Pw10, the investigating officer himself that he didn’t verified as to in whose possession the alleged lands were in, though there are land disputes between accused with Pws.1 to 3 and non collection of any inpatient records of Pws.1 to 3 who took

Page 15 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

treatment as Inpatients in Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals or taking treatment at

Government Hospital at their village also casts cloud as to the mode of investigation done by Pw10, including the seizure of Mos.1 & II after lapse of three days, when there is ambiguity that whether accused fled away or left the scene of offence.

(IX) As it is evident from the record and stated supra, the independent witnesses who were examined as Pws6 & 7 turned hostile deposing nothing in favor of prosecution case also hints doubt about occurrence of incident. In view of the material available on the record, it is evident that the evidence of Pws.1 to 10 had failed to ingrain before this court that accused A1 & A2 criminally trespassed into alleged lands of Pws.1 to 3 and beat them with an intention to kill to grab their land, which infact was in possession of A1, as some extent of land as admitted by Pws.1 to 3 was already sold to A1. Therefore, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences under

Sections 447, 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC and he accordingly acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of January, 2023.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Yellanki Saidulu P.W.2:Yellanki Muthyalu

Page 16 of 16 S.C No.189 of 2016

P.W.3:Yellanki Atchamma-None- P.W.4:B.Suresh P.W.5:B.Dasu P.W.6:G.Muthyalu P.W.7:G.Ramaswamy P.W.8:G.Shankar Reddy P.W.9:Dr.Maithili P.W.10:K.Malleshwari, SI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2:Photographs (5 Nos.) & memory card Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P4:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P5:Signature of Pw.8 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6:Signature of Pw.8 on rough sketch Ex.P7:First Information Report Ex.P8:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9:Rough Sketch Ex.P10:Medical Certificate Ex.P11:Medical Certificate

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1: Two sticks

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

Page 1 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

 AT :: BHONGIR

Monday, this the 09 th day of January, 2023

Present:­Sri KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

At Bhongir.

SESSIONS CASE No.169 of 2015

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair vide PRC No.76 of 2014 dated 02.02.2015)

Between :­

State by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Mothkur Police station. …. Complainant AND 

1.Gyara Swamy @ Mahesh, S/o Bixam @ Bixamaiah, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o D.Repaka Vg of Mothkur Mandal.

2.Gyara Poolamma, W/o Bixam, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o D.Reepaka village of Mothkur Mandal.

3.Suraram Naveen, S/o Yadagiri @ Gaddam, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o D.Repaka village of Mothkur Mandal. ….Accused

Charge:under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:guilty Order : In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they accordingly convicted of the said offence under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The Marked Material Object MO.1 shall shall be retained till expiry of the appeal period. 

Sentencing Order A1 to A3 are sentenced hereunder; for the offence U/sec 307 of IPC, accused persons A1 to A3 are hereby sentenced to undergo an Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five

Page 2 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) by each accused. In default of payment of fine each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One month. A1 to A3 are directed to undergo for an Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six Months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­(Rupees One thousand only) by each accused person for the offence U/sec 324 of IPC. In default of payment of fine each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently as provided U/sec 31 Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Ramachandra Rao & Matta Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for accused persons and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

­: JUDGMENT : ­

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Mothkur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.65 of 2014 of P.S Mothkur Police Station. 

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2014 at 1900 hours Lw1 / Gyara Narsaiah came to Mothkur PS and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that on 25.07.2014 at about 11:00 hours when Lw.1 along with his son / Pw.2 were going to their agricultural fields, on reaching transformer, one Suraram Naveen / A3 came on his bike to Lw1 questioning him as to why Lw1 abused his father. It is also stated that A3 also beat Lw1 & Pw2 with hands, throttled Pw2’s neck which was informed by Pw2 over phone to his sister / Gyara Swaroopa / Pw1. On hearing the same, his daughter / Pw1 started coming to their fields on her bike but, on her way,

Page 3 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Lw1’s brother son by name Gyara Swamy along with Lw1’s sister in law /

Poolamma / A2 obstructed Pw1 and Gyara Swamy stabbed her with knife on left side of stomach, breast causing severe bleeding injuries. It is also stated that due to land disputes among them accused attempted to murder his daughter. Hence Lw1 filed this complaint to take necessary action against accused.

3. Basing on the above complaint, Pw13 registered a case in Cr.No.65 of 2014 U/sec.307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. During investigation, Pw13 examined, recorded the statements of Lw1 & Pws.1 & 2 and sent the injured persons to

Area Hospital for treatment from there the injured were shifted to Kamineni

Hospital, Narketpalli. After examining injured persons, the doctors i.e Lw13 & Lw14 who treated injured Pws.1 & 2 had issued wound certificates opining that Pw1 sustained grievous injuries and Pw2 sustained simple injury. On 26.07.2014 at 07:00 hrs Pw13 visited scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch in the presence of Pws.7 & 8 followed by examining Pws.3 to 6 & Lw6. Further as per the requisition on 26.07.2004 Lw15 recorded dying declaration statement of injured Pw1 at

Kamineni Hospital, Narketpalli. On 30.07.2014 accused A1 to A3 were apprehended followed by recording confession statement of A1, seizing one knife from his possession under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of Pws.9 & 10. On completion of investigation

Pw13 filed charge sheet by deleting accused by name Surarram @ Gaddam

Yadagiri, Rudraram Yadagiri & Chippalapalli Sudhakar and charged accused / A1 & A2 that they had committed offences U/secs.307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and against A3 for the offence U/sec 324 of IPC. 

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections.307, 324 r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and registered the case as PRC No.76 of 2014. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused, as contemplated under Section

Page 4 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Ramannapet, vide committal order dated 02.02.2015 under

Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble

Sessions Court registered it as S.C No.169 of 2015 and made over the same

to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of accused persons before this Court, they were examined U/sec 228 Cr.P.C. Framed charges for the offences U/Secs 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The substance of accusation made against accused Nos.1 to 3 were read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined Pws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 & M.O.1 on behalf of prosecution. 

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence.

Accused / A1 to A3 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.The learned counsel for prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and relied on their evidence to establish the guilt of the accused persons. During chief, Pw1 I.e daughter of defacto complainant and the injured testified that, on 25.07.2014 his brother along with her father I.e Pw2 & Lw1 went to nearby agricultural well and at about 11:00 am, Pw2 called her over phone informing that A1 & A3 assaulted them, immediately Pw1 began to go that place on her bike but when she reached Mekalaband, Goudavari Doddi three persons namely Gaddam Yadagiri, Rudraram Yadagiri, Chippalapally

Sudhakar along with A1 to A3 stopped her bike. Pw2 further testified that when she questioned them as to why they bet Pw2 to which Gaddam

Page 5 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Yadagiri replied that Pw2 questioned them for cultivating their land as such they attacked Pw2 to which Pw1 stated that the said land belongs to their family. Meanwhile Chippalapally Sudhakar abused her in filthy language as what would Pw1 do, responding to the same, Gaddam Yadagiri intervened stating that they can sit together to settle the matter but while Pw1 was replying to Gaddam Yadagiri, A1 who was standing on left side attacked her with knife on her waist, stomach causing severe cut injuries. Pw1 testified that, as A1 attacked on her breast till abdomen, when Pw1 was obstructing with her right hand, A1 forcefully moved knife as a result she sustained severe injury on her right hand ring finger and back of left ear. 

9.Pw1 further testified in her chief that, as A1 was still trying to attack her, Gaddam Yadagiri & others intervened and rescued her, and as Pw1 was roaring / screaming in pain Pws.3, 6 & Lw5 who were cutting timber near scene of offence came to her, gave water and Pw3 & Lw6 tied chunni to her waist as Pw1 was bleeding. Pw1 also testified that when Pws.3, 6 & Lw5 approached accused they went away but A3, Gaddam Yadagiri took her to

Pw5 / RMP Doctor and went leaving her at Pw5. Later Pw2 came to Pw5 along with her sister in law / Swarnalatha who all shifted her to Government

Hospital from there, Pw1 was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally for better treatment where surgery was done to her severe injuries on her waist, breast & stomach. Pw1 also testified that there are land disputes between their family with A1’s family, boring grudge of the same A1 to A3 attacked her, as A3 mother of A1, supported him while A1 was attacking Pw1 with knife and A3 also wiped Pw1’s blood drops which fell on the ground while A1 was attacking her. Pw1 categorically testified about her injuries that A1 stabbed her under left side of her breast causing deep injury for which surgery was done from chest part to stomach as intestines were opened due to stab injury. 

Page 6 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

10.During chief, Pw2 testified that on 25.07.2014 at about 10.00 to 11.00 am while he along with his father / Lw1 were going to their agricultural fields, on reaching Mekalabanda, Chippalapally Sudhakar & Rudraram

Yadagiri stopped him and Gaddam Yadagiri threatened Pw2 as to why Pw2 was discussing about the land the other day attempting to assault him with hands but Chippalapally Sudhakar & Rudraram Yadagiri rescued Pw1 asking him to go away from that place. Pw2 also testified that when he along with Lw1 were going, on their way on reaching transformer near their agricultural fields A3 came on his bike, caught hold Pw2’s neck, dragged him back abusing in filthy language stating why Pw2 quarreled with A3’s father

Gaddam Yadagiri and stating the same, A3 beat Pw2 with hands on his neck, stomach, piercing Pw2 throat with hands. Pw2 further deposed that,

A3 pushed him on the ground, kicked him as a result Pw2 sustained injury on his left hand little finger, when Lw1 tried to intervene, A3 also pushed and kicked Lw1 as a result Lw1 fell in a pit by the road side. 

11.Pw2 further deposed in his chief that A3 threatened Pw2 & Lw1 to kill them at which point Pw4 intervened and rescued them. Pw2 also testified that, later he informed his sister / Pw1 about the incident over phone and immediately Pw1 started to come to place of incident but she didn’t reach even on waiting for ½ hr, as such Pw2 once again called Pw1 on phone, then

Pw1 replied that she is lying in pool of blood as A1 to A3 attacked and stabbed her. Pw2 testified that he went running into the village but she was shifted from incident place to Pw5 / RMP doctor, thereafter Pw1 fell near temple beside RMP doctor then Pw2 & his wife / Swarnalatha shifted Pw1 to

Mothkur PS, from where to Ramannapet Govt hospital and from there to

Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally for better treatment. Pw2 testified that his sister /Pw1 told him that A1 stabbed her on her left side of waist, breast, left ear and right hand finger for which surgery was done to Pw2 as she sustained grievous injuries on her left side waist, under breast also intestines were injured as Pw1’s stomach was cut apart. Pw2 testified that

Page 7 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Lw1 reported to police on same day and reasons for this incident was land disputes between his family with accused family since long time. 

12.Pw3 in his chief testified that he know accused, Pws.1, 2 & Lw1 and about six years back while he was at Goudsvari agricultural well at

D.Reepaka village cutting timber along with Pw6, Lw7 they saw quarrel and upon hearing huge voice, they all went onto the nearby road where they saw

Pw1 lying on the road. Pw3 also testified that on seeing Pw1, he along with

Pw6 & Lw7 rescued Pw1 and tied chunni on Pw1’s waist to avoid further bleeding as they thought some injury might have occurred. Pw3 testified that thereafter Pw1 was taken on a tractor by others and by the time they went to the spot accused persons fled away from that place. Pw6 the co­worker of

Pw3 had deposed in chief on similar lines as that of Pw3. Pw4 the eye witness turned hostile deposing that he didn’t witnessed any incident nor he was examined by police. Pw5, the RMP doctor testified in his chief that about 6 yrs back on one day, during afternoon Pw1 came to his clinic and on inquiry Pw1 stated that she sustained injuries in some quarrel in their village, on hearing the same Pw5 answered that he will not treat patients who sustained injuries in any quarrel as such Pw1 left his clinic.

13. Whereas the panch witnesses for scene of offence who were examined as Pws.7 & 8, so also the panch for confession cum seizure examined as

Pws.9 & 10 had turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence nor seized any material. Pw11 doctor who treated Pw2 and issued Ex.P6 testified that Pw2 sustained bruise injury of 2 x 2 cm on occipital region might have caused by hand which is of simple in nature.

Pw12 the doctor testified on behalf of Lw13 who treated Pw1 had identified

Lw13 signatures on Ex.P7 and reiterated all those injuries sustained by Pw2 as Stab injuries of grievous in nature caused by sharp object. Pw13 the investigating officer reiterated the contents of charge sheet as to the investigation done. Basing on the above evidence prosecution submitted that

Page 8 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

the accusations against the accused persons were proved beyond doubt and he may be convicted for the alleged offenses. 

14.On the other hand learned counsel for the accused strenuously argued that none of the accused had ever committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to Pw13. During cross, Pw1 testified that she is unmarried, an auto driver by profession and her father Lw1 filed complaint before police. Pw1 testified that she wore chudidar­pyjama when incident occurred and police didn’t seized that dress from her which is still with her. Pw1 testified that she don't know whether police seized blood stained earth from scene of offence. Pw1 admitted that there is civil suit vide

OS No. 135 of 1996 between their family and accused persons in

Ramannapet court. Pw1 deposed that incident occurred between 11.30 to 12.00 pm denying that she approached police station directly after incident.

Pw1 stated at first she went to RMP doctor and police sent her to hospital at

Ramannapet. Pw1 stated that on the same day of incident police examined and recorded her statement in evening.

15.During cross Pw2, admitted that there are land disputes between their family with accused persons from 15 years. Pw1 admitted that he is not present when accused stabbed his sister and he reached scene of offence after one hour of the incident. Pw1 admitted that he took Pw1 directly to

Police station, from there to Govt. Hospital as police accompanied them to

Ramannapet Hospital, thereafter Pw1 was shifted to Kamineni Hospital for better treatment. Pw2 testified that after one day of incident police examined him denying that his statement was recorded at police station. Pw2 denied that Pw1 is in habit of quarreling with others as such a rowdy sheet was opened against Pw1 at Mothkur Police Station. Pw2 denied that his father /

Lw1 had extra marital affair and stabbing of Pw1 took place during quarrel

Page 9 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

among their family members taking advantage of the same, they filed false case. 

16.Pw5 in his cross testified that he is working as RMP doctor from past 35 years who has to give first aid to patients and refer them to doctor. Pw5 testified in cross that Pw1 is in speaking condition when she arrived at his clinic and he didn’t saw any injuries on her body as Pw1 didn’t show any injuries.Pw5 categorically testified that police did not record his statement in his presence. Pw6 admitted in cross that he haven’t seen the exact occurrence of incident and he do not know who caused injury to Pw1 as the place they were working on that day was far away from scene of offence.

Pw11, the doctor who examined Pw2 admitted that it is possible to sustain injury as mentioned in Ex.P6, if a person falls on a ground. Pw12 admitted in cross that he didn’t treated injured and don’t have personal knowledge of

Ex.P7 as he is deposing evidence based on record.

17.During cross of Pw13 I.e the investigating officer in his cross that he received complaint from Lw1 mentioning that Pw1 sustained injuries on left side of her stomach (Ex.D1) and there’s no mention of injuries sustained by

Pw2 on his ring finger, left ear. Pw13 admitted that he didn’t collect medical certificates from Pw5 for his treatment given to Pws.1 & 2 nor seized Pws.1 & 2 blood stained cloths. Pw13 also admitted that he didn’t obtained Lw1’s signature in Ex.P8 and he cannot say whether any rowdy sheet is opened against Pw1 in Mothkur PS. The defence counsel vehemently argued that in view of several material discrepancies, contradictions and admissions elicited in the cross examination of prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 13, the same is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

18.Heard both sides.

Page 10 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fructified in proving the guilt of accused/

A1 to A3 for the offences under sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 

[a]On careful perusal of the entire material available on record including the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, 5, 6 & Pws.11 to 13 seems to be relevant for the prosecution as the other independent witnesses had turned hostile. It is just to note the main accusations made by prosecution against accused even at the cost of redundancy to separate grain from chaff, that on 25.07.2015 at about 11.00 when Lw1 & Pw2 were going to their agricultural fields A3 came to them, assaulted them with hands, throttling Pw2’s neck for the reason as to why

Lw1 is abusing his father and on knowing the same, while Pw1 was coming to see Pw2 & Lw1, on her way Surarram @ Gaddam Yadagiri, Rudraram

Yadagiri & Chippalapalli Sudhakar along with A1 to A3 stopped her at

Mekalaband, Goudavari Doddi where while they were discussing about the reason for assaulting Lw1 & Pw2 including their land disputes A1 attacked

Pw1 with knife, stabbed on her left side waist, chest causing bleeding injuries. As per the record, the defence counsel had no where denied as to occurrence of pre & post events to that of stabbing Pw1, as defence counsel even suggested to Pws.1 & 2 that there were land disputes between accused with Pws.1 & 2 family for more than 15 yrs which itself elicits the motive of the accused persons to attack injured persons, as accused were alleged to have objected while they were tilling the disputed land. 

[b] To begin with, there is no dispute that Pw1 sustained severe stab injuries as elicited in her medical certificate Ex.P7 but the same was denied by defence counsel making counter allegations that Pw1 sustained such stab injuries through her father / Lw1 during their family quarrel which was categorically denied by Pws.1 & 2 during their cross. As per the injured

Page 11 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

testimony I.e Pw1 which was corroborated by Pw1, categorically testified

before this court unfolds all such events which occurred on the day of

incident prior and post attack on Pw1 on 25.07.2014 as in continuation of their acts with Pw1 & Lw1, accused persons obstructed Pw1 while she was going to help Pw1 & Lw1 all the accused persons / A1 to A3 attacked Pw1 with knife boring grudge for land disputes at which point A2, the mother of

A1 supported when A1 was attacking Pw1 with knife and A3 also wiped

Pw1’s blood drops which fell on the ground while A1 was attacking her while blood was drooping, A2 cleaned the same to ensure there are no blood traces available at the scene itself establishes the common intention among the accused persons in attacking Pw1. 

[c]The learned counsel for prosecution places reliance on the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court 2008 (1) Supreme Today 294, Vijay Shankar Shinde

& Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, Dt:15.01.2008 wherein it was held that “the evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant” and (2003) 10 SCC 424 wherein it was held that “the evidence of injured eye witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to discarded lightly” which aptly syncs with the present case in hand, as Pw1 who sustained severe bleeding injuries would not implicate accused persons only for the disputes they had with accused. 

[d]More particularly, the independent witnesses who were examined as

Pws.3 & 6 had categorically testified before this court in corroboration with the version of Pw1, that while Pws.3 & 6 were cutting timber, they heard huge noise and they all saw accused quarreling with Pw1. They further, testified that on reaching the scene of offence, they saw Pw1 with bleeding injuries and they tied chunni to Pw1’s waist as an effort to stop loss of more blood which is in sync with the testimony of Pw1, the injured, who

Page 12 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

categorically testified incidents of post attack that Pws.3, 6 & Lw5 came to her, gave water of which, the defence counsel haven’t made any effort to elicit any contradictory view through Pws.3 & 6 except that they were not present at the scene of offence nor able to say who stabbed which cannot be sustained as they specifically mentioned that by the time they reached scene of offence accused fled away as the accused were only present at the scene with Pw1 at that time. It is well settled principle that ocular evidence prevails over the medical evidence and in the present case the evidence of injured /

Pw1 was corroborated with Pws.3 & 6 I.e independent witnesses which establish that Pw1 sustained stab injuries caused by A1.

[e]The main contention of the defence counsel putforth even in his written arguments filed was mainly pertaining to non marking of complaint filed by Lw1 as the defacto complainant evidence was closed basing on the report filed by police that Lw1 died. Further police failed to examine the doctor i.e Lw15 who examined, treated Pw1 and issued Ex.P7 in whose place Pw12 was examined, who except reiterating the contents of Ex.P7 basing on the record hence Pw12 evidence cannot be reliable, that too, when Pw1 failed to mention the names of accused before, in itself proves fatal, as defence counsel placed reliance on 1196 CrLJ 1807 which is not applicable to the present case in hand. The defence counsel mostly on the evidence of Pw5 / RMP doctor who deposed that Pw1 came to him on the day of incident and informing that she sustained injuries during quarrel in her village to which Pw5 refused to provide treatment and surprisingly, Pw5 turned hostile deposing in cross that he did not found any injury on Pw1 which in itself casts aspersions as to why Pw5 refused, without providing treatment to Pw1 and turned hostile. If, admitted that as per Pw5 there are no injuries found on Pw1, the same would have mentioned by Pw5 in his chief itself, but not during his cross. Further, the judgments relied upon by the defence counsel I.e2005 SCC (Crl) 1646, 2019 (2) ALD Crl 224 SC are

Page 13 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

not applicable to the present case in hand as they are pertaining to different case facts than that of the case on hand. 

[f ]On thorough scrutiny of the entire record, it is obvious to note the approach of investigating officer while investigating this case as he / Pw13 himself admitted during his cross by defence that he did not collect the blood stained earth, Pw1’s blood stained dress which in no way hints the innocence of accused persons or creates suspicion as to their involvement in the light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (6)

Supreme 261, State of Punjab Vs Hakam Singh wherein it was held that “ on the manner of firing and recovery of guns, non­seizure of blood stained clothes but these short comings hardly impeach her testimony” and non examination of Lw15 who examined Pw1 hints that the investigation was done in routine manner which should not have impact on the prosecution case in any manner. Further, the main argument putforth by the defence that no panch witnesses had deposed in favor of prosecution as they all turned hostile will not cast any cloud as to occurrence of incident as they are subsequent events. Here comes a legal obligation on the part of this court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the objects of finding out the truth as the conclusion of the trial in any case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.

[g]In view of aforesaid detailed discussion and as per of the verdict of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sadakat Kotwar and Anr vs. The State

of Jharkhand, Dt:12.11.2021 wherein it was held that “when the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is right held that the appellants have committed offence Under Section 307 of IPC” which aptly suits to the present case in

Page 14 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

hand, it is evidently clear that the evidence brought on record by prosecution had inspired complete confidence of this court among the accused persons, on 25.07.2014 it was A3 who initially assaulted Pw2 with his hands which lead to the quarrel with Pw2, obstructing on her way at Mekalaband by A1 to

A3, while they were arguing with each other, A1 attacked Pw1 with knife causing severe bleeding injuries right from her left side breast till abdomen, at which time, A1’s mother, who tried to hold Pw1’s hands with which Pw1 was trying to dodge the attack had aided A1 in his attack, so also, A3 the other accused who stood right next to A1 & A3 never made any effort to stop brutal attack on Pw1, which A2 ought to have done such acts, thereby A2 also aided A1 in attacking Pw1 as per detailed discussion supra which consistently prove the chain of evidence against the accused persons to convict them which proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 

In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences under

Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they accordingly convicted of the said offence under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The Marked Material Object MO.1 shall shall be retained till expiry of the appeal period. 

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of January, 2023.

 ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Accused A1 to A3 present. On questioning accused persons on the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them, A1 submitted that he is the elder among in his family members having two sisters and old aged bedridden father who sustained spine injury in recent accident. A2 submitted that she is solely dependent on A1 and has to look after her bedridden husband. A3 is eking his livelihood by doing agriculture and sole bread earner of his family. All the accused persons submitted various reasons pleading to consider their plight and impose minimum sentence.

Page 15 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

Further all the accused persons submitted that they are not convicted in any other cases before.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the opinion that considering economical and old age ailments of accused persons, a lenient view on the A1 to A3 can be taken who are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for offence U/Sec.307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code. 

Therefore, A1 to A3 are sentenced hereunder; for the offence U/sec 307 of IPC, accused persons A1 to A3 are hereby sentenced to undergo an Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Five

Years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) by each accused. In default of payment of fine each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of One month.

A1 to A3 are directed to undergo for an Rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six Months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees One thousand only) by each accused person for the offence U/sec 324 of

IPC. In default of payment of fine each accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently as provided U/sec 31 CrPC. The remand period undergone by any of the accused persons during investigation or trial shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused were informed about their right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions

Court and also to get free Legal Aid from the Hon’ble Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Bhongir, if they had no means.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page 16 of 16 S.C No.169 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Gyara Swarupa P.W.2:Gyara Venkatesham P.W.3:Chippalapally Iddaiah­­­ None – P.W.4:S.Sampath P.W.5:Vemula Saidulu P.W.6:Bandela Venkanna P.W.7:S.Sudhakar P.W.8:Chippalapally Saidulu P.W.9:Ch.Anjaiah P.W.10:K.Chalapathi Reddy P.W.11:Dr. A.Venkateswarlu P.W.12: Dr. Nishikanth P.W.13: A.Ranjith

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: 

Ex.P1: Section of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.4 Ex.P2: Signature of Pw.7 on Scene of offence panchanama & rough sketch Ex.P3: Signature of Pw.8 on Scene of offence panchanama & rough sketch Ex.P4: Signature of Pw.9 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of Pw.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6: Wound certificate of Pw.2 issued by Pw.11 Ex.P7: Medical certificate of Pw.1 Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Rough Sketch Ex.P11: Confession cum seizure panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1: Marked portion in written complainant of Lw.1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: MO1:One knife

FOR DEFENCE:­Nil­ 

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page 1 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Monday, this the 11 th of March, 2024

Present:- Sri KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

(FAC) Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

At Bhuvanagiri.

SESSIONS CASE No. 459 OF 2022

(On committal made by the learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir vide PRC No.30 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020)

Between :- The State of Telangana through PS. Bhongir Rural. ….Prosecution AND

A-1:Takur Venu Babu S/o.Shyam Lal, Age:25 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Vadaigudem village of Bhongir Mandal. A-2:Vanka Shekar, S/o.Narsimha, Age:28 years, Occ: Vegetable business, R/o.H.No.8-47, Ambedkarnagar, Nadhargool Balapur Mandal, R.R.District. A-3:Tulasigari Mahesh, S/o.Babu, Age:27 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o.H.No.1-18/3, Mangalapally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. ….Accused / A1 to A3

Charge:U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused / A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and they are accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Ishaq Nehal, learned counsel for accused A1 to A3 and upon hearing them, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

Page 2 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

- :JUDGMENT: -

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Police Station filed charge sheet against accused / A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 in Cr.No.36 of 2018 of P.S Bhongir.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2018 at 04:00 hours, Pw.10/E.Srinivas Reddy on receiving credible information that there is an alleged engagement of certain lodge proprietors situated in and around proximate areas of Raigiri-Yadagirigutta BT road in Vadaigudem’s outskirts indulged in facilitating unlawful activities involving couples for prostitution purposes as such Pw10 along with his staff i.e., Pws.1 to 6 and two mediators i.e., Pws.8 & 9 proceeded to the City Deluxe lodge at

Vadaigudem outskirts to conduct raid. On reaching City Delux lodge,

Pw.10 enquired its owner i.e., Takur Venu Babu / A1 duly intimating their presence, therafter during search in Room No.102, Pw.10 along with

Pws.1 to 6, 8 & 9 found naked couple who were identified as Vanka

Shekar / A2 & Jalagala Suma / Pw.7. On further search of another Room

No.103, they found another naked couple who were identified as

Tulasigari Mahesh / A3 & Mandala Nagalaxmi / Lw.9.

3.On inquiry, A2 & A3 asserted that they provided financial assistance to victims / Pw.7 & Lw.7 who were engaged in consensual sexual activities which was recorded under the cover of confessional statements of Accused / A1 to A3 in the presence of Pws.8 & 9 apart from seizing Lodge register(bill book), cash of Rs.2,480/-, one Iphone each from

A1 & A2, one bike each from the possession of A2 & A3. Thereafter accused along with Pw.7 & Lw.7 were taken into custody, brought to PS,

Bhongir Rural on the same day to take necessary legal action. Basing on the above panchanama, Pw.10 registered a case in Cr.No.36 of 2018 for the offences U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3 & 5 of

Page 3 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. During investigation, Pw.10 examined, recorded the statements of his staff and victims i.e., Pws.1 to

7. Later, the accused persons were produced them before the court for judicial custody and also produced victims Pw.7 & Lw7 who were sent to rescue home as per the orders of the Hon'ble Magistrate. After depositing the case property and on completion of investigation, Pw.10 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The learned Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir has taken cognizance of the offences U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code &

U/Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused / A1 to A3 and registered the same as PRC No.30 of 2019. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused persons, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Prl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, vide committal order dated

10.02.2020 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Principal District &

Sessions Judge, Yadadri Bhongir District. The Hon’ble Principal District &

Sessions Court registered it as S.C.No.459 of 2022 and made over the

same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of accused / A1 to A3 before this Court, they were examined U/sec.228 Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offences

U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The substance of accusation made against accused / A1 to A3 were read over and explained to them in their regional language for which they denied, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw10, marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MOs.I to VI on behalf of prosecution.

Page 4 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused /

A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons, who denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt

of accused / A1 to A3 for the offence U/ Secs.370(A)(2) of

Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-[a] The learned counsel for prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 10 and mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 & 10 to establish the guilt of the accused persons as all other independent prosecution witnesses including the victim /Pw7 had turned hostile deposing nothing in favor of the prosecution case. During examination in chief, the police personnel who participated in raid along with Pw10 were examined as

Pws.1 to 6 had deposed in similar lines that on 28.02.2018 at about 04:00a.m. they conducted raid on City Deluxe lodge at Vadaigudem outskirts and on search, they enquired owner of lodge i.e., A1 by seizing

Iphone, cash of Rs.2,480/-, lodge register(bill book) from his possession.

Pws.1 to 6 also deposed that during further search in Room Nos.102 & 103, they found A2 & A3 along with victims/Pw.7 & Lw.7 in compromising situation and police seized two bikes, two mobile phones from the possession of A2 & A3. Pws.1 to 6 also deposed that on enquiry, A2 along with Pw.7 and A3 along with Lw.7 revealed that they were involved in prostitution at the behest of A1.

[b]During chief examination of Victim who was examined as

Pw.7 had turned hostile, deposing that about ten years back, when she was in Yadagirigutta Police came there and took her to Police station

Page 5 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

without informing anything and produced before Magistrate. Panch witnesses / Pws.8 & 9 for scene of offence and seizure panchanamas also turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted nor seized any material in their presence. Pw10, reiterated contents of charge sheet as to the raid at City Deluxe lodge and investigation done by him. Basing on the above evidence, prosecution submitted that the accusations against the accused persons were established beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence prayed to convict the accused for the alleged offences.

[c]Whereas, the learned counsel for the defence strenuously argued that accused persons never committed any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by any of the prosecution witnesses. During cross, Pws.1 to 6 & 10 categorically admitted that they did not verified nor filed any documents to show that the said lodge belong to accused person / A1 or verified as to Pw.7 & Lw.7 / victim name or details to ascertain their identity. Pw10 categorically admitted in cross that he did not examine any independent witnesses during his investigation. In view of the hostility of victim and panch witnesses who are independent witnesses, it is clear that prosecution evidence is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner.

Hence, accused / A1 to A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

[d]On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses adduced before this court, none of them had disclosed any incriminating evidence against the accused persons with regard to the accusations made against accused persons / A1 to A3 that A1 induced victims / Pw.7 & Lw.7 into prostitution, accordingly, Pw.7 & Lw.7 engaged with A2 & A3 respectively seems to be far from the truth as all the prosecution witnesses who corroborated the version are none other than police personnel who accompanied Pw10 for raid resonates the parrot version about the raid conducted at A1’s lodge as no independent witnesses was either examined by Pw10 nor those

Page 6 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

witnesses I.e panch for confession cum seizure examined as Pws.8 & 9 including the victim / Pw.7 turned hostile deposing nothing in corroboration of the accusations of prosecution that accused persons were organizing prostitution in A1’s lodge with Pw.7 & A2.

[e]It is not out of place to mention here that as per their own version, police had secured presence of panch witnesses Pws.8 & 9 at police station Yadagirigutta much before proceeding to the raid who didn’t deposed anything in corroboration of the prosecution case in their presence cogently shows that Pws.8 & 9 their evidence cannot be relied without corroboration. More so, Pw10 himself admitted that he did not examined any independent witnesses near the lodge of A1 which itself elicits the mode of conducting investigation by Pw10 which reflects in admission of Pw10 that they did not verified or obtain any document to show that the A1 is the owner or resident of the alleged lodge also casts ambiguity on evidence of prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 6.

[f]More particularly, victim who is allegedly rescued from the accused/A1 lodge was examined as Pw.7 also turned hostile deposing that she do not know anything about the case, instead she specifically stated that police took her from Yadagirigutta while she was waiting at bus stop without informing anything nor Pw7 was examined by police which is also quite contra to the accusations made against the accused persons. In view of the material available and evidence on the record adduced by the main material witnesses, it is cogent that evidence of Pws.1 to 10 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the guilt of accused persons that they committed the alleged offences. Therefore, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused /A1 to A3 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Page 7 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

In the result, accused / A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence

U/Secs.370(A)(2) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. Marked objects i.e., MOs.I to

VI shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of March, 2024.

(FAC) PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 :D.Bhavani P.W.2 :Md.Yakub Khan P.W.3 :B.Vasantha -None- P.W.4 :K.Govind P.W.5 :P.Rajashekar P.W.6 :M.Chandramma P.W.7 :Jalagala Suma P.W.8 :Bomma Ganesh P.W.9 :Pachhimatla Anasuya P.W.10:E.Srinivasa Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.8 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3:Signature of Pw.9 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P4:Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P5:Crime Details Form Ex.P6:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.I :Apple Iphone from the possession of A1 M.O.II :Cash of Rs.2,480/- from the possession of A1.

Page 8 of 8 S.C No.459 of 2022

M.O.III :Apple Iphone from the possession of A2 M.O.IV :Yamaha FZ bike from the possession of A2 M.O.V :Vivo 7 Plus Silver mobile phone from the possession of A3 M.O.VI :Hero Honda Passion Pro bike from the possession of A3

(FAC) PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.

Page 1 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT :: BHUVANAGIRI

Thursday, this the 14 th of March, 2024

Present:- Sri KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

(FAC) Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge,

At Bhuvanagiri.

SESSIONS CASE No. 196 OF 2018

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair vide PRC No.21 of 2018 dated 01.05.2018)

Between :-

The State of Telangana represented by Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta. ….Prosecution AND

A-1:Kamsani Padma W/o.Gangaiah, Age:60 years, Occ: Prostitution Organizer R/o.Kandukuru Gadda, Yadagirigutta village and Mandal. A-2:Narre Vikas S/o.Shivanadham, Age:28 years, Occ: Car driver, R/o.Jillalaguda village of Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. (abated) ….Accused / A1 & A2

Charge:U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused / A1 is found not guilty of the offence U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and she is accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri Md. Ishaq Nehal, learned counsel for accused / A1 & A2 and upon hearing them, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

Page 2 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

- :JUDGMENT: -

The Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Police Station filed charge sheet against accused / A1 & A2 for the offences under Sections 370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Cr.No.44 of 2018 of P.S Yadagirigutta.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.02.2018 at 11:15 hours, Pw.7/P.Ashok Kumar on receiving credible information that one

Kamsani Padma / A1 is operating brothel in her house, he along with his staff i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and two mediators i.e., Pw.6 & Lw.6 proceeded to the house of accused / A1 to conduct raid on reaching the said house, Pw.7 found that A1 is running prostitution in her house with the victim by name

Lakkipogu Uma/Pw.5 who was found with one male by name Narre Vikas /

A2. Pw.7 further stated that on enquiry, A1 confessed about commission of this offence by keeping victim with the accused / A2 by organizing prostitution in her house. On search, police had seized cash of Rs.400/- and five condom packets from the possession of accused / A1. Later, the accused persons along with Pw.5 were taken into custody and brought to

PS, Yadagirigutta on the same day at 13:00 hours by filing a case to take necessary legal action.

3.Basing on the above panchanama, Pw.7 registered a case in

Cr.No.44 of 2018 for the offences U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. During investigation, Pw.7 examined his staff and victims i.e., Pws.1 to 5 by recording their statements. Later, the accused / A1 & A2 along with Pw.5 were produced them before the court for judicial custody, of them Pw.5 was sent to rescue home as per the orders of the Judicial Magistrate. After completion of investigation, Pw.7 filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair has taken cognizance of the offences U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code &

Page 3 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused / A1 & A2 and registered the case as PRC No.21 of 2018. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused persons, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair, vide committal order dated

01.05.2018 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered it as S.C.No.196 of 2018 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of accused / A1 & A2 before this Court, they were examined U/sec.228 Cr.P.C. and framed charge for the offences

U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The substance of accusation made against accused / A1 & A2 were read over and explained to them in their regional language for which they denied, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw7, marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs.I & II on behalf of prosecution.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused /

A1 & A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused persons, who denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt

of accused A1 & A2 for the offence U/ Secs.370, 370(A) of

Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Page 4 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

POINT:-[a] The learned counsel for prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 7 and mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 & 7 to establish the guilt of the accused persons as all other independent witnesses including the victim who was examined as Pw.5 had turned hostile. During examination in chief, the police personnel who participated in raid along with Pw7 were examined as Pws.1 to 4 who all deposed in similar lines that on 18.02.2018 they conducted raid in the house of A1 situated at outskirts of Yadagiripally village, where on search they found A1 along with victim/Pw.5 who is with A2 and they also found cash of Rs.400/- & 5 condom packets from the possession of A1 which were seized. Pws.1 to 4 also deposed that they saw Pw.5 & A2 were present in the house of A1 and on enquiry Pw.5 revealed that she was involved in prostitution at the behest of A1.

[b]During chief examination of Victim as Pw.5, she turned hostile deposing that in the year 2018 while she was attending function at

Yadagirigutta, Police called her and recorded her details without informing anything and produced before Magistrate, on whose instructions victim /

Pw.5 was shifted to rescue homes. The sole panch witness / Pw.6 for confession-cum-seizure panchanama had deposed that on 18.02.2018 when he was in Yadagirigutta bus stand, police called him to PS,

Yadagigutta from where he along with Lw.6 were accompanied with the police in their jeep to the house of A1 situated at Pedda Kandukur village,

Yadagirigutta whereas, the police received credible information about running of prostitution. Pw.6 further deposed that by entering into the house of A1, he saw Pw.5 and A2 and on enquiry A1 confessed about the offence that she is running brothel house.

[c]Pw.6 specifically testified that police conducted confession- cum-seizure panchanama by seizing cash of Rs.400/- & 15 boxes containing 5 Nos. each in box of nirodh condom packets from the possession of A1. Pw7, reiterated contents of charge sheet as to the raid at accused house and investigation done by him. Basing on the above

Page 5 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

evidence, prosecution had argued that the accusations against the accused were established beyond reasonable doubt as the same is corroborated by Pws.1 to 4 about conducting of raid in A1’s house, apprehending A2 along with Pw.5. Hence prayed to convict the accused for the alleged offences.

[d]Whereas, the learned counsel for the defence strenuously argued that accused persons never committed any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by any of the prosecution witnesses. During cross, Pws.1 to 4 & 7 categorically admitted that they did not verified nor filed any documents to show that the said house belong to accused person / A1 or verified as to Pw.5 /victim name or details to ascertain their identity. Pw.6 in his cross admitted that he deposed evidence as panch witness in other cases and the said panchanama was drafted at Pedda Ganapur. Pw7 categorically admitted that in cross he did not file any document to show that the alleged house belongs to A1, and that A1’s house is situated at kandukur gadda village, but in Exs.P3 & P4 it was mentioned as Ganesh

Nagar. In view of the hostility of victim, it is clear that prosecution evidence is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner. Hence, accused / A1 & A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

[e]On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses adduced before this court, none of them had disclosed any incriminating evidence against the accused persons with regard to the accusations made against accused persons / A1 & A2 that, of them A1 induced victim / Pw.5 into prostitution, accordingly, Pw.5 indulged with A2 cannot be considered due to the parrot version of Pws.1 to 4 who accompanied Pw7 during the alleged raid conducted at A1’s house no other independent witnesses including the victim / Pw.5 had corroborated the accusations nor deposed in favor of prosecution that accused persons were organizing prostitution in A1’s house with Pw.5 & A2.

Page 6 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

[f]It is not out of place to mention here that as per their own version, police had secured presence of panch witnesses Pw.6 at police station Yadagirigutta much before proceeding to the raid who too deposed that police conduct panchanama seized cash of Rs.400/- & 15 boxes containing 5 Nos. each in box of nirodh condom packets in his presence, but during cross, Pw.6 categorically admitted that he deposed evidence as panch in other cases cogently shows that he/Pw.6 is stock witness, whose evidence cannot be relieved without corroboration, but both Pw.6 had corroborated his evidence by inducting his version at the time of raid by the police. More so, Pw7 himself admitted that A1’s house is situated at Kandukur gadda village, but as per Exs.P3 & P4 it was mentioned as A1’s house is situated at Ganesh nagar that too, in specific admission of Pw.6 stating that the confession-cum-seizure panchanama was drafted at Pedda Ganapur itself elicits the mode of conducting investigation by Pw7 which reflects in admission of Pw7 that they did not verified or obtain any document to show that the A1 is the owner or resident of the alleged house also casts ambiguity on evidence of prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 4.

[g]More particularly, victim who is allegedly rescued from the accused/A1 house was examined as Pw.5 also turned hostile deposing that she do not know anything about the case and she stated that police never examined nor recorded their statements which is also quite contra to the accusations made against the accused persons. In view of the material available and evidence on the record adduced by the main material witnesses, it is cogent that evidence of Pws.1 to 7 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the guilt of accused that they committed the alleged offences. Therefore, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused /A1 & A2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Page 7 of 7 S.C No.196 of 2018

In the result, accused / A1 is found not guilty of the offence

U/Secs.370, 370(A) of Indian Penal Code & U/Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and accordingly, she is acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. Marked objects i.e.,

MOs.I & II shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of March, 2024.

(FAC) PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:K.Srinivasullu P.W.2:D.Ashok P.W.3:A.Mamatha -None- P.W.4:D.Lingaiah P.W.5:Lakkipogu Uma @ Nagamani P.W.6:Katepally Muthyam P.W.7:P.Ashok Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.6 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3:Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P4:First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.I:Cash of Rs.400/- M.O.II:Nirodh Condoms Packets 15 boxes containing 5 Nos.

(FAC) PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.

Page 1 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT:: BHUVANAGIRI

Present:- KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge

at Bhuvanagiri.

(Monday, this the 08 th of April, 2024)

SESSIONS CASE No. 18 of 2021

(On committal made by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet vide PRC No.20 of 2019 dated 11.09.2019)

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Valigonda Police station. ….Prosecution

AND

A-1:Deshpaka Swamy, S/o.Veeraiah, age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Gangapuram H/o. Arrur village of Valigonda Mandal. A-2:Deshpaka Veeraiah S/o.Lachaiah, age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Gangapuram H/o. Arrur village of Valigonda Mandal. (abated) A-3:Deshpaka Papamma W/o. Veeraiah, age: 65 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Gangapuram H/o. Arrur village of Valigonda Mandal. A-4:Ukkurthy Namratha W/o. Swamy, age: 30 years, Occ: Aasha worker at Velvarthy R/o.Velvarthy village of Valigonda Mandal. ….Accused / A1 to A4

Charges:U/sec 498-A & 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act- 1961. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty. Sentence or Order : In the result, accused / A1 to A4 are found not guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A & 306 r/w. 34 of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961, accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Swamy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V.V.Goud, learned counsel for accused / A1 to A4 and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

-:JUDGMENT:-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valigonda Police Station filed charge sheet against accused / A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 498-A & 306 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961 in Cr.No.210 of 2017 of Valigonda Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 21.12.2017 at 21:30 hours, Kanukuntla Balamma / Pw1 came to police station where she lodged a typed Telugu complaint stating that about 8 years back, her elder daughter i.e., Deshapaka Manjula / deceased marriage was performed with one Deshapaka Swamy / Accused No.1 giving cash of Rs.2

Lakhs, 3 tulas gold ornaments along with other household articles as dowry. It is stated that after two years of marriage, deceased gave birth to a baby boy thereafter A1 along with his father i.e., Deshpaka Veeraiah (A2), mother i.e., Deshapaka Papamma (A3) & sister i.e., Ukkurthy

Namratha (A4), started harassing the deceased mentally & physically demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs, who didn’t changed their attitude even on holding several panchayaths before elders, who too acknowledged misconduct of accused / A1 to A4. It is further stated that on the same day of complaint at about 08:00 hours, villagers from

Gangapuram informed Pw.1 about the death of her daughter / deceased and on knowing the same, Pw.1 rushed to Ramannapet Government

Hospital where she noticed injuries on deceased body & thigh, as well as burns on deceased leg. Hence, Pw1 filed complaint against accused / A1 to A4 alleging their involvement in the murder of the deceased for

additional dowry and thereby requesting to take necessary legal action in

this regard.

3.Basing on the above complaint Pw.13 registered a case in Cr.No.210 of 2017, U/Secs.498-A, 306 of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961. During investigation, Pw.13 handed over the CD-file to Lw.18 who during his investigation had examined Pws.2 & 3, Lws.3 & 5 and rushed to the scene of offence where Lw.18 conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew

Page 3 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

rough sketch seizing 1 ½ liter Monocrotophos pesticide bottle in the presence of Pws.9 & 10. During further investigation, Lw.18 visited Area

Hospital, Ramannapet where he held inquest over the deceased corpse in the presence of Pws.11 & 12 and on 23.12.2017, Lw.18 examined, of

Pws.4 to 6, Lws.7 & 10. Later Lw18 proceeded to Area Hospital,

Ramannapet where Lws.11 & 12 statements were recorded and on 26.12.2017, Lw.19 has taken over the CD-file, on whose request Lw.17 conducted autopsy over the deceased corpse issuing PME opining that the death is due to consumption of poison. Thereafter, Pw.13 received

CD-file from Lw.19 who during his investigation apprehended A1, A3 & A4 on different dates and produced them before the court for judicial remand. After receiving FSL, PME reports and on completion of investigation, Pw.13 filed charge sheet against the accused / A1, A3 & A4 persons.

4.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC &

Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961 against accused and registered the case as

PRC No.20 of 2019. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused persons, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet, vide committal order dated 11.09.2019 under Section 209

Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions

Court registered it as S.C No.18 of 2021 and made over the same to this

Court for trial and disposal as per law.

5.On appearance of accused / A1, A3 & A4 before this Court, they were examined U/sec 228 Cr.P.C. framed charges for the offences

U/Secs.498-A, 306 of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961. The substance of accusation made against accused / A1, A3 & A4 were read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied, pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 4 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw13 and marked Exs.P1 to P18.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused /

A1, A3 & A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused / A1, A3 & A4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of

accused / A1, A3 & A4 for the offences under sections 498-A, 306

of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961 beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:-[a]The learned counsel for prosecution had examined

Pws.1 to 13 to establish the guilt of the accused / A1, A3 & A4 and mainly relied upon the evidence of the investigating officer i.e., Pw.13, as all prosecution witnesses including the mother, elder brother and stepson of the deceased who were examined Pws.1 to 3 had turned hostile. During chief Pws.1 & 2 who deposed in similar lines that about 6 years back, deceased committed suicide as she as suffering with severe ill health.

The other independent witnesses who were examined as Pws.3 to 8 deposed before this court as they do not know anything about this case.

Pw1 specifically testified that she do not know the contents of complaint as police obtained her thumb impression on some blank papers without disclosing anything and Pws.1 to 8 testified that police never examined them nor recorded their statements. Further, the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama who were examined as Pws.9 to 12 also turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence by police. Pw.13 the

Page 5 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

investigating officer had reiterated the contents of his charge sheet about the investigation done by him.

[b]The learned defence counsel strenuously argued that accused / A1, A3 & A4 never committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence adduced through the prosecution witnesses, as all the prosecution witnesses including the mother, elder brother and stepson of the deceased, so also panch witnesses turned hostile deposing nothing in favor of prosecution case as they all specifically testified before this court that they do not know anything about this case. It is also argued that all the panch witnesses / Pws.9 to 12 also turned hostile deposing that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. It is specifically submitted that, in view of the hostility of Pws.1 to 12 and lack of any corroborative evidence through prosecution witnesses, it is cogent that entire prosecution evidence is not helpful in any manner to establish the guilt of accused /

A1, A3 & A4 beyond reasonable doubt, as such accused / A1, A3 & A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

[c]On perusal of material on record and upon hearing arguments from both sides, it is evident that none of the prosecution witnesses including mother, elder brother of the deceased examined as Pws.1 & 2 turned hostile as they came up with different version than that was mentioned in their statements before police deposing before this court that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison as she was suffering with severe ill health without any whisper about alleged harassment on her by the Accused / A1 demanding for additional dowry.

Further, the independent witnesses Pws.3 to 8 also turned hostile deposing in similar lines as that of Pws.1 & 2 who all specifically testified that they do not know anything about this case. More so, panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama who were examined as Pws.9 to 12 deposing before this court that no panchanama

Page 6 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

was conducted in their presence by police. More particularly, the admission of Pws.1 to 3 during their cross by Addl Public Prosecutor that they amicably settled their disputes with accused / A1, A3 & A4 out of court cogently establishes the motive of the witnesses to turn hostile.

[d]Further, Pws.9 to 12 the panch for scene of offence and inquest panchanama also turned hostile deposing that police never conducted any panchanama nor seized any material / Mo.I in their presence. Basing on the reports filed by police the evidence of Lws.3, 5, 7, 17 to 19 were closed by court as material witnesses are turned hostile their evidence was given up by prosecution and Lw.10 died. In absence of any corroborative or documentary evidence elicited through any of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial, which itself establishes that prosecution miserably failed to elicit any corroborative evidence in support of such accusations. Therefore, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence accused / A1, A3 & A4 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

In the result, accused / A1, A3 & A4 are found not guilty of the offence under Sections 498-A & 306 of IPC and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P Act-1961 accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused / A1, A3 & A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of April, 2024.

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.

Page 7 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Kanukuntla Balamma P.W.2:Kanukuntla Mallesh P.W.3:Deshapaka Rithik-None- P.W.4:Deshapaka Pedda Swamy P.W.5:Deshapaka Ushaiah P.W.6:Deshapaka Yellamma P.W.7:Singapanga Swamy P.W.8:Bathula Venkanna P.W.9:Jinukala Danaiah P.W.10:Vemula Narsimha P.W.11:Bajjuri Bucchaiah P.W.12:Chippalapally Muthamma P.W.13:Md.Idris Ali

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1 Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P5:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 Ex.P6:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6 Ex.P7:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7 Ex.P8:Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.8 Ex.P9:Signature of Pw.9 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10:Signature of Pw.9 on rough sketch Ex.P11:Signature of Pw.10 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P12:Signature of Pw.10 on rough sketch Ex.P13:Signature of Pw.11 on seizure panchanama Ex.P14:Signature of Pw.11 on inquest panchanama Ex.P15:Complaint Ex.P16:First Information Report Ex.P17:FSL Report Ex.P18:PME Report

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

Page 8 of 8 S.C No.18 of 2021

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:NIL

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

BHUVANAGIRI.