1
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Machilipatnam
Present: M DEVESTA DEEPIKA II Addl.Judl. Magistrate I Class, Machilipatnam
Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025
CC No.2480/2021
Between: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Robertsonpeta police station
….. Complainant
And
Katuri Murali, S/o.Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o.D.No.9/143- 105-13, Rajeevnagar colony, Balaramunipeta, Bandar
….. Accused
This case is presented before me for final hearing in the presence of learnedSenior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Mr.K.Sri Kiran, learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following
J U D G E M E N T:-
1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,
Robertsonpeta Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.255/2021 for the offence punishable under
Sections 341 and 324 of IPC.
2.Facts of the case in nutshell On 09.11.2021 while LW.1/Jonnalagadda Gopala Krishna is returning to his house at about 01:30am, accused/Katuri Murali 2
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 wrongfully restrained LW.1 due to previous disputes and beat him with stone on his face and as a result LW.1 sustained edema on his left eye and bleeding injuries and when LW.2/Nizampatnam Gowri
SankarintervenedaccusedbeatLW.2withstone
LW.3/Jonnalagadda Lavanya and wife of LW.4 ie., Baji came there and then he was shifted to hospital and police recorded his statement. Basing on his statement, FIR was registered as a case in
Cr.No.255/2021 against the accused for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Police received wound certificate of LW.1 and it was opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.
3.The court took the cognizance against the accused for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4.The accused is examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed against the accused for the offence under
Sections 341 and 324 of IPC is read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of prosecution,
PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC explaining the incriminating material against him in vernacular language, for which he denied the same. No documents and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.
7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the accused
restrained LW.1/Jonnalagadda Gopala Krishna and hit him with
stone and thereby the accused committed offence under
Sections 341 and 324 of IPC? If so whether the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused for the same beyond all
reasonable doubt?
Point:
9. To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined
PWs.1 to 7. P.W.1/J.Gopala Krishna, deposed that he knew the accused and his brother had previous disputes with the accused. On 09.11.2021 at about 1.00 AM while he was returning from work and when he reach Balaramunipeta, the accused beat him with stone on his face and on left eye. He sustained bleeding injury on his nose and edema on his eye. P.W.2 intervened and tried to stop the accused, then the accused beat P.W.2 with stone on his face and 4
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
P.W.2 sustained injuries on his lips and left cheek. On hearing cries
P.W.3 and one Baji reached there and shifted them to GGH,
Machilipatnam. Police recorded the statement/Ex.P1 of P.W.1.
10. During his cross examination P.W.1 deposed there were previous disputed between P.W.4 and accused and alleged incident took place on 08.11.2022 in between 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM. P.W.1 went to Pedana for work at 9.00 AM. P.W.1 was examined by the police twice at the Hospital and he affixed his signature in his 161
Cr.P.C statement. Police recorded his statement in writing. P.W.1 further deposed that he had no disputes with the accused and P.W.4 and accused had previous disputes and P.W.4 lodged a complainant against the accused. P.W.1 reached the Hospital through ambulance. P.W.1 admitted that CC.NO.1423/2022 was pending between accused and P.W.4 and accused beat him with stone on his head. As a result, P.W.1 fell off from the bike and accused again kicked him with legs. He was not intoxicated.
11. Moreover P.W.1 admitted that there is existence of one house in between Tulasi Fabrications and house of Nizampatnam
Gowry Sankar. In addition P.W.1 admitted that one Giri did not came out of the house at the time of altercation. He knew one Sailaja and Subbu and they are neighbours of P.W.1. One Veerakumari is mother of P.W.1. P.W.3 is wife of P.W.1. P.W.1 had no disputes with the aforesaid Subbu and Sailaja. He does not know whether Sailaja filed report against P.W.1 in Chilakalapudi Police Station. P.W.1 5
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 denied that he along with P.w.2 fell off from the bike due to intoxicated state and sustained injures. In addition he denied that
P.w.1 foisted false complainant against the accused as P.W.4 and accused had previous disputes.
12. PW.2/N.G.Sankar deposed that he knew the accused and
PW.1. On 09.09.2021, at about 01:30am, he was watching
Television at his house. On hearing cries, he came out of the house and witness altercation between accused and PW.1. He intervened and tried to stop the quarrel then accused questioned him that who is he to interfere. Subsequently accused beat PW.1 with stone on his face and PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on his nose and mouth and blood oozed from the nose and mouth of PW.1. PW.2 questioned the accused about the issue. Then accused beat PW.2 on his lips, left eye and on his right hand. The lips of PW.2 got cracked and sustained bleeding injury. On hearing cries, PW.3 and others reached there and accused left the scene of offence. PW.1 was admitted to GGH, Machilipatnam.
13. During his cross examination PW.2 deposed that he knew the accused and PW.1 and they were his neighbours. The incident took place at about 01:30 to 02:00pm and he came out of the house after he woke up. At that time accused and PW.1 were fighting and he tried to stop them. Then accused beat PW.1 with red brick. He doesn’t know about the previous disputes between PW.1 and accused and when PW.3 came out of the house, accused left away 6
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 by bike. The distance between scene offence and house of PW.1 is ten feet. He was examined one Constable in the hospital but he doesn’t know the name of the said Constable. PW.2 affixed his signature and police recorded his statement in writing. PW.2 admitted that on hearing his cries, PW.3 came out of the house and it took ten to twenty minutes for the arrival of 108. PW.2 stood on the road till the ambulance reach the scene of offence. In addition
PW.2 admitted that PWs.3 to 5 were family members of PWs.1 and 2 and the said families reside beside the scene of offence. PW.2 denied that he sustained injuries as a result of fallen from bike and no such alleged incident took place and he deposed falsehood.
14. PW.3/J.Lavanya deposed that PW.1 is her husband and
PW.4 is brother of PW.1. She knew the accused. On 09.11.2021 at around 01:00am, heard the cries of PW.1 and he came out of the house and witnessed accused beat PW.1 with stone on his left eye and nose and flee away on his bike. She further deposed she along with wife of PW.4 admitted PW.1 to GGH through Ambulance. She deposed that reason behind the dispute was PW.4 is talking with the wife of accused.
15. During her cross examination PW.3 deposed that she knew the accused and he is her neighbour. She had no previous disputes with the accused. PW.3 admitted that PW.4 filed other case against the accused and she doesn’t know about that alleged incident. Heard the cries and she came out of the house and when 7
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 she came out of the house, accused flee away. PW.3 did not heard while accused abuse him PW.1. However she witnessed accused beating PW.1 and hitting PW.1 with stone. She doesn’t know the stone used to hit PW.1 by the accused. Accused left away with the stone in his hand by bike. She was examined by the police in GGH,
Machilipatnam and police recorded his statement in Laptop.
Nowhere PW.3 affix her signature. She knew PW.5 and he is her neighbour. PW.3 further deposed that she heard the cries of PW.5 and came out of the house. PW.3 denied that she failed to state in her 161 statement that she had previous disputes with the accused and PW.4 teased the wife of accused and she doesn’t know the facts of the case and not witnessed the alleged incident.
16. PW.4/J.Mahesh deposed that PW.1 is his elder brother and
PW.3 is wife of PW.1 and he know the accused. On 09.11.2021 at around 01:30am, he heard the cries and came out of the house and witnessed accused hit PWs.1 and 2 with stone and left away by bike.
PW.1 sustained injury on left cheek and near left eye. PW.2 sustained injury on his face and his mother dialed to 108. PW.3 and his wife Baji shifted PWs.1 and 2 to the hospital. PW.5 witnessed the incident. Police examined him and due to previous disputes between himself and accused, accused beat PWs.1 and 2.
17. During his cross examination PW.4 deposed that he had previous disputes with the accused and dispute in this case is with regard to wife of the accused phoned to PW.4. The alleged incident 8
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 took place about 01:00 to 01:30pm. PW.4 heard the cries of PW.2 and came to the scene of offence and at that time, PW.4 is present at his house. He witnessed accused proceeding on motor cycle of some unknown person. At the first instance, PW.3 came out of the house on hearing the cries of PW.2 and in a flash, PW.4 came out. Mother of PW.4 ie., Veera Kumar dialed to 108 and immediately with twenty minutes ambulance arrived to the scene of offence. PW.4 was examined by the police at hospital once and he did not affix his signature in police station after his examination. He was examined by PW.7 and 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.4 is typed in Laptop. PW.4 denied that no such alleged incident took place and he deposed falsehood at the instance of PW.1.
18. PW.5/N.Gopi deposed that he knew PW.1 and accused.
PW.2 is his son and PW.3 is wife of PW.1 and PW.4 is brother of
PW.1. At about four years ago, at 01:00am, when she along with his son present at his house, on hearing cries, PW.2 went out and not returned. Then PW.5 went in search of PW.2 and witnessed accused beating with stone. PW.2 went for rescue and accused beat PW.2 with stone on left cheek and mouth. PW.2 sustained injuries on face and mouth and PW.2 sustained swollen injury on mouth. Then PW.3 and wife of PW.4 shifted PWs.1 and 2 to GGH, Machilipatnam.
19. During his cross examination, PW.5 admitted that PW.1 is his neighbour and he resides abutting to his house and he had good terms with PW.1 and his house asbestos shed. PW.5 do not 9
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 remember the date of alleged incident. However he deposed that at 01:30am, the alleged incident took place and at that incident, she was watching TV along with her son. She heard the cries of A1 and
PW.1. She further deposed that on hearing cries, PW.2 went out and within fifteen minutes, she went to the scene of offence. She doesn’t remember the date of examination by the police and where she affixed her signatures. She doesn’t know whether PW.1 and accused had disputes or not. PW.5 witnessed accused beating PW.2. PW.5 denied that no such alleged incident took place and she deposed falsehood at the instance of PW.1 as he was her neighbour.
20. PW.6/Dr.MKN Ganesh, Medical Officer deposed that on 09-11-2021, at around 02-40 a.m., PW.6 examined PW.1 and found the injuries: 1). Nazal bleeding, 2). C/o. pain and swelling in left cheek, 3). C/o. pain and swelling in left cheek, 4). C/o. pain and swelling on left eye and PW.6 suggested MRI plain and found no significant abnormality detected in brain parenchyma and Minimal mucosal thickening in bilateral maxillary and ethimoidal sinuses and issued wound certificate of PW.1/Ex.P2 and he opined that the above said injuries are simple in nature and on the same day, he examined PW.2 at 02-40 a.m., and found the injuries: 1. Abrasions on left cheek. 2. C/o. pain and swelling on upper lip. 3. Abrasions on right wrist joint. 4. Abrasion on left knee joint and PW.6 suggest
X-Ray skull (AP and lateral) and PW.6 given impression that no significant abnormality and he issued wound certificate of 10
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
PW.2/Ex.P3 and he opined that the above said injuries are in simple in nature.
21. In his cross examination he stated that on the date of examination of PWs.1 and 2 he was working in Andhra Pradesh
Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. He admitted that he was on duty when he examined PWs.1 and 2. He did not test PWs.1 and 2 for alcohol test.
He did not notice symptoms of consumption of alcohol. As per
Ex.P2, PW.1 is accompanied to hospital with one J.Lavanya who is wife of PW.1. As per Ex.P3, PW.2 is accompanied to the hospital by one Baji. There might be possibility of said injuries as per Ex.P2 if fallen from bike. There might be possibility of said injuries as per
Ex.P3 if PW2 is pillion rider on the bike of PW1. There is time gap of 1 hour 40 minutes from the time of alleged incident to my examination. Basing on the details furnished by the injured and my examination and basing on the X-Ray report if any suggested by him, he issued wound certificate to that effect. It is true that as per
Ex.P2 assault beaten by one known person with hands. As per
Ex.P3 assault beaten by two known persons with hands. He denied that without examining PWs.1 and 2 he issued Exs.P2 and P3 on political influence as a special interest.
22. PW.7/P.Ranadheer, ASI of Police deposed that on 09-11- 2021 at 07-10 a.m., PW.7 received hospital intimation/Ex.P4 from
Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, immediately, he hastened to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and basing on the 11
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 statement, PW.7 registered FIR/Ex.P5 a case in Cr.No.25/2021 for the offence under Sections 341 and 324 IPC against the accused. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 in the hospital. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence i.e., at
Balaramunipeta and drafted rough sketch/Ex.P6, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.3 to 5. LW.8 served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. On 22-11-2021 and 23-11-2021 LW.8 received wound certificates of PWs.1 and 2 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
23. In his cross examination he stated that on 09-11-2021 at around 01-00 p.m., he examined witnesses at scene of offence. He asked neighbours to the scene of offence to act as witness, however they refused to act as witness. After inspection of scene of offence hedraft rough sketch. He did not seize any weapon in this case. On identification by PWs.1 and 2, he observed Katuri Murali as accused in this case. He enquired about the previous disputes between accused and PW.1. After verifying the wound certificates of PWs.1 and 2 LW.8 filed charge sheet against the accused. He denied that he did not conduct proper investigation in this case. He denied that his investigation is desk work and LW.8 foisted false case against the accused and filed charge sheet against him.
24. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 09.11.2021 at 01:30am, as a consequence of previous disputes between accused and PW.4, accused wrongfully restrained PW.1 and beat him with 12
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 stone on his face. When PW.2 intercepted, accused pounded PW.2 with stone. PWs.1 and 2 are injured persons. PW.3 is wife of PW.1 and PW.4 is younger brother of PW.1. PW.5 is mother of PW.2. The testimony of PW.1 is that he knew the accused and his brother/PW.4 is having previous disputes with the accused. On 09.11.2021 while he was returning from work at about 01:00am, when he reached Balaramunipeta, accused armed him with stone on his face and eye. He sustained edema on his left eye and bleeding injury on his nose.
25. When PW.2 intercepted, accused pounded PW.2 with stone on his face and he sustained injuries on his lips and left cheek.
Upon hearing cries PW.3 and one Baji came to rescue and shifted them to Government hospital. During his cross examination, he deposed that police recorded his statement in writing. However the statement of PW.1 is in typed format. It is notable from the evidence of PW.2 that on 04.09.2021 at about 01:30am, he heard cries and came out of the house and witnessed altercation between accused and PW.1. PW.2 intercepted. Then accused questioned PW.2 about his intervention and beat PW.1 with stone on his face. PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries and blood oozed from the nose and mouth of PW.1.
26. Whereupon PW.2 questioned the accused, then accused beat PW.2 on his lips, left eye and right hand. His lips got cracked and sustained bleeding injury. On hearing cries, PW.3 and others 13
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 came there and shifted him and PW.1 to GGH, Mtm. The evidence of
PW.2 corroborated with the testimony of PW.1. During his cross examination he admitted that PWs.3 to 5 are family members of
PWs.1 and 2. PW.2 stated that police recorded his statement in writing. However the same was in typed format. In addition PW.2 deposed that when he tried to stop accused and PW.1, accused beat him with red brick. PW.3 witnessed accused beat PW.1 with stone on his left eye and nose. She along with wife of PW.4 admitted PW.1 to GGH via 108 Ambulance. PW.4 witness accused hit PWs.1 and 2 with stone. Mother of PW.4 dialed to 108. PW.4 deposed in his chief that PW.3 and his wife shifted PWs.1 and 2 to the hospital. PW.3 admitted in his cross that PW.4 filed other case against accused.
However she doesn’t know about that case/incident.
27. In addition she admitted that she did not hear accused abusing PW.1. PW.3 refuted that accused slapped PW.1 with hands.
PW.3 deposed in her chief that she witnessed accused hitting PW.1 with stone. However she doesn’t know the stone used to hit PW.1 by the accused. Further she deposed that accused left away with stone in his hands by bike. PW.4 deposed in his cross that he had previous disputes with the accused. He heard the cries of PW.2 and came out of the house and witnessed accused proceeding on the motor cycle of some unknown persons. It is note worthy from the evidence of PW.5 that on hearing cries when PW.2 went out and not returned. In search of PW.2, PW.5 went out and witnessed the 14
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 accused beat with stone and when PW.2 came to rescue, accused beat PW.2 with stone on left cheek and mouth.
28. Then PW.3 and wife of PW.4 shifted PWs.1 and 2 in GGH,
Mtm. PW.5 deposed in her cross that she doesn’t remember the date of alleged incident, however at 01:30am, the incident took place. At that moment, she was watching TV and she heard the cries of A1 and PW.1. She doesn’t knew whether PW.1 and accused is having disputes or not. She witnessed PW.1 and also while accused beating
PW.2. On 09.11.2021 at about 02:40am, PW.6 examined PWs.1 and
2. He found Nasal bleeding of PW.1 and minimal mucosal thickening in bilateral maxillary and ethimoidal sinuses. PW.6 opined that the injuries sustained by PW.1 are simple in nature and issued Ex.P2 to that effect. Moreover PW.6 found abrasions on left cheek, right wrist joint and on left knee joint of PW.2. PW.6 opined that the injury sustained by PW.2 are simple in nature and issued Ex.P3. PW.6 gave impression that no significant abnormality.
29. PW.6 did not notice any symptoms of consumption of alcohol wherefore he did not check alcohol test to test PWs.1 and 2.
PW.6 admitted that as per Exs.P2 and P3, PWs.1 and 2 were accompanied to the hospital by J.Lavanyaand Baji and possibility of injury as per Exs.P2 and P3 if they fall from bike. Based on the complaints furnished regarding x-Ray report and examination by
PW.6, he issued wound certificate. PW.6 admitted that as per Ex.P2 assault beaten by one known person with hand and as per Ex.P3, 15
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 assault beaten by two known persons with hands. PW.7 failed to seize weapon and he recognized accused with the identification of
PWs.1 and 2.
30. It is significant from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries as a result of accused and it is evident from coupled with Exs.P2 and P3 the evidence of PW.6. Accused hit PW.2 on his lips, left eye and right hand. It is note worthy from Ex.P3 that PW.2 sustained abrasions on left cheek, c/o pain and swelling on upper lip, abrasion on right wrist joint and abrasion on left knee joint. As propounded by learned counsel for the accused. As per
Ex.P2, PW.1 accompanied to the hospital with one J.Lavanya as per
Ex.P3, PW.2 accompanied to the hospital by one Baji. Recording the statements of PWs.1 and 2 by police in writing is minor contradiction and not fatal to the case of prosecution.
31. Usage of stone used for hitting PW.1 by the accused are not fatal to the case of prosecution. PWs.3 to 5 witnessed accused hit PWs.1 and 2 with stone and PW.3 along with wife of PW.4 shifted the injured to the hospital and the evidence of PW.4 corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 in this regard. It is inferred from the cross examination of PW.3 that accused slapped PW.1 with hands. The chain of events ie., immediately after the incident mother of PW.4 dailed to 108 and PW.3 and wife of PW.4 shifted PWs.1 and 2 to
GGH, Machilipatnam. PW.6 examined PWs.1 and 2 and issued
Exs.P2 and P3. Moreover Exs.P2 and P3 reveals the injuries 16
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 sustained by PWs.1 and 2 and the cogent evidence on record inspire confidence that the accused committed this offence and ingredients of Section 341 is satisfied.
32. Moreover the weapon used by the accused not seized by the police. The record reveals that no stone was seized by police, a question arises as to whether the accused can be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC for having beaten PW.1 with the stone when the stone itself has not been seized. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the stone stated to have been used by the accused to beat PW.1 was not seized by the
Investigation officer. No reason whatsoever has been adduced by him as to why the stone was not seized. In the ordinary course of things, when the accused is stated to have used a stone to commit the offence, for obvious reasons, the seizure of the stone becomes imperative and quintessential to establish the case of the prosecution.
33. It is not out of place to mention that the prosecution did not choose to adduce any explanation as to why the seizure of the stone could not be effected. The record does not reveal any steps whatsoever take towards the seizure of the stone. Even assuming that the seizure could not have been effected, still, it was incumbent on the part of PW.7 to have had made efforts and taken necessary steps in this regard. The question would be as to whether this non- seizure of the stone is fatal to the entire case of the prosecution, 17
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 even to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, which do not require the seizure of the stone. To answer this question, this court deems it apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Rakesh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2021 SC 3233. In the aforesaid case, the evidence of the direct witnesses reveals that the accused 1 to 3 therein caused the death of a person using a gun.
34. However, as per the finding given in the ballistic report, it was said to be doubtful that the bullet found in the person of the deceased was fired from the gun stated to have been recovered by the police from the possession of the accused therein. That being the case, a reasonable doubt was cast as to whether the gun seized by the police was actually used in the commission of the offence. The
Hon'ble Apex Court, after scrupulously scrutinizing the record held
as "At the most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an accused, recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non. PWs.1 and 2 as observed herein above, are reliable and trustworthy eye witnesses to the incident and they have specifically stated that the accused No.1 fired from the gun and the deceased sustained injury.
18
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
35. The injury by the gun has been established and proved from the medical evidence..." In the aforesaid case, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of
IPC and convicted accordingly. That being the case, applying the aforesaid dictum to the present case, the accused herein could still be convicted of the offence alleged against him notwithstanding the seizure of the stone. Thus, the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not quintessential to establish the guilt of the accused. Applying this principle to the case in hand, it can be said that the recovery of the stone is not sine quo non to establish the guilt of the accused. However, the Courts are bound to decide each case on their own merits, facts and circumstances and there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. That being said, this
Court is bound to juxtapose the facts of the present case with the aforesaid case dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
36. In the aforesaid case, putting aside the question of the involvement of the weapon in the actual commission of the offence, recovery of one weapon or the other was undertaken by the investigating officer. In the present case, the record reveals that the investigating officer did not even bother. However, owing to the fact that the stone stated to have been used by the accused was not seized by the Investigating officer without assigning or adducing any reason for such inaction on his part, it can only be said that the prosecution failed to establish that hurt was caused to PW-1 using the stone. Apex Court, in the present case, it cannot be said that 19
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 notwithstanding the seizure of the stone, the accused herein could still be convicted of the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC ie., for causing hurt with the stick.
37. In the present case, the inability of the Investigating officer in either seizing the stone or assigning any reason for the same categorically and unequivocally excludes the involvement of the stone in the commission of the offence and thereby, the commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is ruled out.
However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that even in the absence of the stone, based on the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.P1, the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW-1, though not with the stone, thereby attracting, establishing and proving the commission of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.
38. The immediate question that arises for consideration is can the accused be convicted of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC though he was not charged with it. In this connection, the power enumerated under section 222 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play and picture. In the present case, the allegation against the accused is that he caused hurt by using a dangerous weapon and so, the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC was invoked against him and he was charged and 20
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 tried for the same. The prosecution has been able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused did, in fact, cause hurt. Nevertheless, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is established and the guilt of the accused which ought to have been established for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC stands established for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC due to facts proved.
39. It is not out of place to mention that the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is undoubtedly a minor offence when juxtaposed with the offence punishable under section 324 of
IPC. Further, both these offences arise out of the same transaction and the same actions on the part of the accused. It is not as if these two offences arise out of different and distinct events. That being the scenario, the provisions of section 222 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Probation are squarely applicable to the case in hand. In addition, the conditions requisite for initiation of the proceedings under section 323 of IPC remain satisfied notwithstanding the fact that it is non cognizable, by virtue of the inclusion of 324 of IPC, which prima facie was made out during the inception of the case as well as the stage of taking cognizance.
40. Moreover, no prejudice would befall the accused since all the witnesses were cross-examined on aspects pertaining to the offence punishable under 323 of IPC as well. Accordingly, this Court 21
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 holds that the accused can be convicted of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC though he was not specifically charged with it. It is already held that the non seizure of the stick would only imply that the prosecution failed to establish the commission of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC by the accused.
However, even in the case of such non seizure, the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is established beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.
41. As such, though the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of
IPC, the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is categorically established beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore this Court is inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. However, the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is established beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly. Wherefore based on the plausible and credible evidence on record, the ingredients of Sections 341 and 323 of IPC proved rather than Section 324 of IPC. Ergo based on the proved evidence, accused is sentenced to imprisonment.
22
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
42. The evidence let in by the prosecution satisfies the ingredients of Sections 341 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereby rendering the accused liable for conviction for the offence.
Dictated to stenographer, directly typed on my computer, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, on this 20th day of June, 2025.
Sd/- M DEVESTA DEEPIKA
II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.
43. The accused has been questioned on the quantum of sentence upon which the accused pleaded mercy as he is bread winner of his family, he is having old aged parents and prayed to take lenient view.
44. Heard and perused the record, keeping in view the gravity of the offence committed by the accused, this court has not taken lenient view while imposing sentence. The benefits of probation of
Offenders Act are not invoke. Having gone through the record once again considering the circumstances this court opined it is a fit case to impose lesser punishment by way of fine.
45.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under
Section 324 of IPC. However, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence 23
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025 punishable under Sections 323 and 341 r/w 34 of IPC. In the result, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled. Since the accused has not been detained in judicial custody in the present case, the provisions of section 428 of the Cr.P.C shall not be applicable. The accused appraised of his right to appeal and the availability of free legal aid at the appellate stage. A copy of this judgment is hereby furnished to the accused.
Dictated to stenographer, directly typed on my computer, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court, on this 20th day of June, 2025.
Sd/- M DEVESTA DEEPIKA
II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Oral Evidence
For prosecution: For defence: PW.1: J.Gopala Krishna -None- PW.2: N.Gowrishankar PW.3: J.Lavanya PW.4: J.Mahesh PW.5: N.Gopi PW.6: M.K.N.Ganesh PW.7: P.Ranadheer 24
II AJFCM, MTM Dt.20.06.2025
Documentary Evidence
For prosecution: For defence: Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P4: Hospital intimation Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Rough sketch.
Material Objects
-Nil-
Sd/- M DEVESTA DEEPIKA
II AJFCM, MTM.