Pg.No.1 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KHAMMAM
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2024 Present: Smt. M. Kalpana,
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
KHAMMAM.
SESSIONS CASE NO.13 OF 2023
1.Name of the complainant :: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S, Khanapuram Haveli
2. Names of the accused::A1) Barla Ravi @ Ravi Babu, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao (late), Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Allipuram, Khammam. A2) Barla Prasad Babu @ Prasad, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao (late), Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Allipuram, Khammam. A3) Barla Swarupa, W/o. Ravi @ Ravi Babu, Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Allipuram, Khammam.
3.Offences under Section:: Sections 294(b), 341, 307 r/w. 34 of IPC.
4.Crime number and Name :: 70/2022 of P.S, Khanapuram Haveli. of police station
5.PRC.No.:: 76 of 2022
6.Case committed by :: II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class,Khammam
7.Prosecution conducted by :: Sri. Md.Irshad, Additional Public Prosecutor
8.Defence conducted by :: Sri V. Srinivasa Rao
9.Plea of the accused:: Not guilty
10. Finding of the court:: Found not guilty
11. Sentence or Order ::In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the off ence under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 is one stick length of 3 feet and MO.2 is three sticks length of 2½ feet (vide CPR No.8/2024), shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Pg.No.2 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
This case is coming before me for final hearing today in the presence of
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the
accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Khanapuram Haveli had filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.70/2022 for the offence punishable under
Sections 294(b), 341 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
2.The brief facts of prosecution case are that:-
(a) LW1/Kasimalla Vijayakumari, who lodged a complaint on 28.02.2022 stating that Srinivasa Rao, is her husband, who is working as APM in IKP on contract basis. They are having property situated in Sy.No.500/E at
Dhamsalapuram revenue village, which is an agriculture land. Prior to that day at about 4.00 PM., her husband and one Ballem Ramulu, who is brother by courtesy proceeded to the said agriculture land on their motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-Q- 9717, after verification of the fields again they returned from the fields at about 5.00 PM., on the way to the residence, when they reached at agricultural field of
Ravuri Venkateswarlu, which is narrow way at that time, four (4) persons stopped the vehicle of victim, started abusing in filthy language, started beat him with sticks on his head, back and other parts of the body indiscriminately, at that time,
Ballem Ramulu, who is along with husband of LW.1 requested to stop them, meanwhile they beat Ballem Ramulu on his left hand. Due to fear her husband escaped from the scene by leaving his motorcycle and went towards agricultural fields of Ravuri Veeraiah. Then, Ravuri Veeraiah informed the same to Ballem
Anjaiah over phone. On receiving information, she along with her son went to scene of offence and she noticed that her was shifted to Government Hospital,
Khammam through 108 ambulance. The said four persons with dishonest intention
Pg.No.3 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 to kill her husband they hatched a plan and attacked her husband with sticks. On enquiry they came to know that the said four persons ie., Accused No.1 to 3 and one Juvenile, who are residents of Allipuram caused said incident. For the last several years, agricultural disputes are having in between the both families, the said issue is pending before competent Court of law. She further stated with an intention to kill her husband, all the accused who bet him to get the said property, as such they caused the attempt to murder of her husband with sticks, they beat him indiscriminately. For better treatment her husband was shifted to Srujana
Hospital, as such they could not lodged complaint on the date of incident. She further submitted that at the time of shifting her husband to hospital, they lost his mobile. Hence, prayed the Hon’ble Court to take necessary action against the said accused persons.
(b) Basing on the contents of the above report, LW11/M. Ramesh Kumar, Sub
Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli Police Station has registered a case in
Cr.No.70/2022, under Section 294(b), 341 and 307 of IPC and he has issued FIR to all concerned and took up investigation. During course of investigation, he has examined and recorded detailed statement of LW.1. On 01.03.2022, he has visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators LW.8 and 9 and incorporated the detials of the scene in the crime details form and drawn rough sketch and seized two sticks from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and secured the witnesses LW.2 to 5 examined and recorded their statements. Later, he has visited Srujana Orthopedic Hospital, Khammam, examined the injured/LW.6 and recorded his detailed statement.
c) On 23.03.2022, he arrested the accused No.1 and 2 at the house of accused No.1 and interrogated them. On interrogation, the accused No.1 and 2
Pg.No.4 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 admitted their guilty of offence and brought them to Police Station and sent them to judicial custody.
d) On 21.06.2022, LW.11 arrested the accused No.3 at her residence and interrogated her. On interrogation, she admitted her guilty of offence and brought her to Police Station and sent to Court for judicial remand. LW.10/Dr. Ch. Mounika, duty Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam, who treated the injured LW.6 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries are “Grevious in nature”. After completion of investigation LW11 has filed a
Chargesheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 294(b), 341 and 307 r/w.34 of IPC.
3.The Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam has taken cognizance of the case and registered it as PRC.No.72/2022. The accused were furnished with copies of relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Learned Magistrate, having found prima-facie case, had committed the case to the Court of Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. as the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.
4.The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam has taken the case on file as SC.No.13/2023 and made over the same to the Court of Prl.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam for disposal according to Law. Thereafter, as per proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide Dis.No.4071 dated 28.10.2022, the case is transferred to this court.
5.On appearance of the accused before the Court, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and defence Counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C and
Pg.No.5 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 considering the material on record, as per Section 226 of Cr.P.C. charges for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 307 r/w.34 of IPC, were framed against the accused, read over, and explained to them in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5, in addition MO.1 and Mo.2 were marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW.7 and 9.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused.
9.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether Prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 341 and 307 r/w. 34
of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?” POINT:-
10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.5, in addition MO.1 and Mo.2 were marked. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW.7 and 9. PW.1 is the defacto- complainant and wife of the PW.1 is wife of the injured, who testified the contents of the complaint that her husband is working as APM in IKP in conract basis as well as they are having agriculural land situated at Dhamsalapuram. He used to visit the fields, during holiday on 27.02.2022, being Sunday he along with LW2/B.
Pg.No.6 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
Ramulu proceeded to the Agrticulture fields on two wheeler for observing the same, when they returned from the fields on the way to their home, they reached near Ravuri Venkateswarlu fields near Eruku Donka, at that time accused No.1 to 3 along with other 4 persons, who stopped the vehicle and attacked him with sticks as such he has sustained bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body.
When he tried to escape from the fields towards LW.3/Ravuri Veeraiah agriculture fields at that time, the said Ravuru Veeraiah was attending his agriculture work for spare the pesticides. When the LW.3/R. Veeraiah questioned the accused for beating the inuured and asked them to stop the galata. They beat her husband and took his mobile phone and cash of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- from the pocket of the injured. Immediately, the LW.3/R. Veeraiah called the 108 Ambulance and shifted her husband to the Government hospital. The said incident was witnessed by LW.2/B. Ramulu and LW.3/R. Veeraiah informed her over phone, immediately she narrated the incident to persons and rushed to the hospital, on the next of the incident she lodged the complaint. She further testified that due to old disputes pending in between them before the Court of law as the accused attacked her husband with an intention to kill to settle the matter.
11.Pw.2 who accompanied with the PW.5, who testified and corroborated with the testimony of PW.1 about attacking to the PW.5 with stick, the accused persons were attacked this PW.2 with sticks, he sustained bleeding injuries, immediately he tried to escape, he ran towards LW.3/R. Veeraiah fields, but they chased him and beat him. At that time the LW.3/R. Veeraiah stopped the said persons. The
Veeraiah and PW.2 tried to rescue the PW.5. Thereafter all the accused left from scene of offence, Veeraiah informed the incident to LW.4/B. Anjaiah, he dialed 108 ambulance, immediately he was shifted to the Government hospital, Khammam
Pg.No.7 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 in108 ambulance, on the next day of the incident he shifted to the Srujana hospital. The accused persons used two sticks of 2 1/2 feet height on confrontation the case property, he has identified the same.
12. PW.3 is son of the PW.2, who is circumstantial witness, he corrborated with the testimony of PW.2 about the alleged incident. He testified that he personally shifted the PW.5 to the hospital and he informed the said incident to the PW.1 and brother of PW.5 viz., Nageswar Rao.
13. PW.4 is the son of PW.1 and 5 (injured), who received information from his mother as well PW.3 about the said incident. Immediately, they rushed to the
Government Hospital and noticed that his father was sustained severe injuries as well stitches on his head, left hand injury. As per the narration of PW.4, he clearly stated that when his father was visited the agricultural fields at that time, accused
No.1 to 3 along with his son attacked his father with sticks regarding the previous disputes kept in their mind as they are having land disputes. In that galata, Pw.2 is also sustained injuries. The testimony of PW.1 to 3 corroborated with the testimony of PW.4.
14.PW.5, who is injured who testified that the accused No.1 to 3 and their son attacked him with sticks on his spine stating that if they kill him all disputes concerning land will be resloved. They attacked him with an intention to kill him they are having previous Civil disputes. During that galata, he sustained severe injuries on his head and left Elbow, he was undergone Surgery to his back of Waist.
Due to fear, he rushed to the fields of R. Veeraiah even after cautioned by
Veeraiah, they beat him stating that they will kill him. At that time, PW.2 and
Veeraiah threatened the accused that if they could not stop the galata they will send them to jail. He was shifted to Government hospital in 108 Ambulance, he
Pg.No.8 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 walked till the road from agricultural fields, his phone snatched by the accused persons. For better treatment he was shifted to the Srujana Hospital.
15.PW.6 who is the prime witness of the said witness, who stopped the alleged incident in between the accused persons and PW.5. He could not support the case of the prosecution except the land disputes in between the accused and PW.5 family. He testified that PW.5 is having agricultural land situated at Allipuram.
During the cross examination by the counsel for accused, the agricultural land of the accused No.1 is situated at Allipuram which is 300 metres far from his agriculture land.
16.PW.7 is the panch for scene observation panchanama, who testified before this Court that he acted a panch for CDF and rough sketch, he testified that police seized three sticks length of 2 1/2 feet. He identified the said property before the
Court.
17.PW.8 is the doctor, who treated the injured, who issued Ex.P.4. as per her testimony, the patient/P.W.5 alone came to the hospital with the injury as mentioned in Ex.P.4. As per her examination the injuries sustained by PW.5 are grevious in nature. She suggested to take X-ray of left Elbow AP lateral view, after verification of the X-ray which was found due to fracture of left Ulna at Olecrenon process. On her enquiry, the patient informed that some known persons bet him with sticks. Thereafter, she has issued MC of the PW.5.
18.PW.9 who is Investigating Officer, who received complaint from the PW.1. He recorded the statement of PW.1. PW.9 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama and seized MO.1 and 2. He secured the presence of PW.2 to LW.5/PW.2, PW.6/LW.3, PW.3 and PW.4 at scene of offence and recorded
Pg.No.9 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 their statements. Later he has visited the Srujana Hospital, Khammam and he recorded the statement of PW.5 and LW.6. Thereafter, he apprehended the accused
No.1 to and collected Medical certicicate from PW.8 and after completition investigation, he filed charged sheet along with property.
19.During the cross examination of PW.1, she clearly admitted that Ex.P.1 was drafted by her brother-in-law. She narrated the said incident after gone through the contents, she signed on the complaint. They have mentioned date and time of the incident was on 27.02.2022 at about 4.00 PM., the disputed land survey number is 500/E. The Civil suit was filed in respect of the 500/E by her husband against the accused vide OS.No.1014/2022 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam, she did not know which year the said suit was filed, whether interim order was granted or not in favour of her husband. She does not know the facts of the case and her husband is not filed the said suit. It was filed by her brother-in-law. The land in Sy.No.500/E is joint family property of her husband and his brother. She further admitted that she did not mention in
Ex.P.1 that the said land is joint property. She has not handed over any documentary proof to show land in Sy.No.500/E is belongs to them. Her husband is used to works in IKP at Mulugu District. During holidays, he used to visit the agricultural fields. They have not raised any crop, but they used to visit the said land. She further admitted that she did not mention the phone number of LW.4 by the time of visiting scene of offence as no one was present. She did not hand over any photographs and videos to the concern police to show that her husband was sustained head injury. The distance between her house to police station and to hospital is approximately 5 KM. After three days of joining him in Government
Hospital, Khammam, she shifted her husband to Srujana Hospital. None of the
Pg.No.10 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 neighbouring cultivators informed about the incident to her because no one were present during alleged dispute. The witnesses i.e., LW2/B. Ramulu and LW.4/V.
Anjaiah who are the close relatives, LW.5/K. Jaswanth is her son and they were blood relatives. She did not know about the disputed property by whom it was acutually owned. She came to know about the incident through known persons of their family. She further admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P.1 as well as to the concern police that accused had taken away cell phone of her husband including cash of Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/-.
20.PW.2 who accompanied with PW.5 who clearly admitted that the mother of
PW.5 viz., Kasimalla Kanthamma, who is mother in law. The said land was sold by the said Kanthamma to one Sanjeeva Rao, who is her younger brother and none other than the father of accused No.1 and 2. The accused cultivating the disputed land. He do not know the result of the Civil Suit filed against the accused by PW.5.
He knows the PW.6 for the last 5 to 6 years. PW.3 is his son, but he did not remember his mobile phone number at the time of alleged incident, he has given his mobile to PW.3 to call his son, the PW.5 is also having Ac.1-00gts., adjacent to the disputed land. He further admitted that they went to see the property of PW.5, but not the disputed land of the accused. He further admitted that he has stated to the police that they went to see the boundary stones of PW.5. But, he do not know the survey number of PW.5. The disputed land and land of PW.5 are surrended by agricultural lands. The neighbouring land owners cultivating their lands when they visited the said property, the alleged lands are situated in
Damsalapuram revenue. At the time of alleged incident no other independent witnesses were available to rescue this people. The panch witness Kasimalla
Mahindranadh is his own son-in-law. Except information of this PW.6 and PW.2
Pg.No.11 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 none of the persons knows this alleged inicent. He further admitted that police examined him at scene of offence. He further denied that keep in view the Civil dispute in between the both families, the PW.1 has lodged a false complaint. It is further admitted that the accused are no way concerned with the land owned by the LW.6 which isnext to disputed property/Sy.No.500/E.
21.PW.3 who is son of PW.4 who clearly admitted that they are having agriculture work at Ramakrishnapuram. His father used to put thumb impression most of the times. PW.5 is his maternal uncle. He further admited that he did not visit the scene of offence at the time of the incident. He has not called the 108
Ambulance. Many people were gathered, who came from Allipuram. He is personally shifted the LW.6/PW.5 in an ambulance. The distance between his village to Allipuram is 3 KM. Lws.1 to 6 are his blood relatives. He does not know whether PW.5 filed Civil suit against the accused. He does not know who has cultivated the land in Sy.No.500/E, he did not witness the alleged incident as such he does not know who beat whom. The same was informed by his father and
PW.5/LW.6. Further he has denied that he is deposing false as PW.5 is his relative and that accused are no way concerned with present case.
22.It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.w.4 who is son of P.w.1 that
Ex.P.1/complaint was drafted by his mother/P.w.1 and P.ws.2 and 3 informed about the incident at PS while drafting Ex.P.1. P.w.4 admitted that except P.W.2,
PW.3, his father and L.w.3/R.Veeraiah, no other person near scene of offence informed about alleged incident. He further admitted that except on the information given by his father, P.ws.2 and 3, he knows the incident, but he do not have personal knowledge about alleged incident. P.w.4 pleaded ignorance as to filing of civil suit by his father against accused.
Pg.No.12 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
23. In cross-examination, P.w.5 deposed that he only stated before police that his phone was snatched by accused, but he did not specify the model or number of phone. It is further elicited that P.w.5 have land in Sy.No.500/E, but he did not submit any documents to police to show that he had land in
Sy.No.500/E. He admitted that the land was vacant and uncultivated when he went to see the land. Further deposed that he did not file any revenue records or title documents into court. He denied the suggestion that Sanjeeva Rao who is the brother of the mother of victim/PW.5 purchased land from his mother on 04.06.2001 and he admitted the signature on a document dated 04.06.2001 executed in favour of Barla Sanjeeva Rao, his contention is that he signed on blank paper. He further stated that the said document was not implemented for payment of consideration under it, for which the disputes arose between them.
P.w.5 further admitted that he did not file any suit seeking payment of consideration by Sanjeeva Rao or for implementation of document dated 04.06.2001 and for cancellation of said document till alleged incident.
However, P.w.5 adds that his younger brother filed suit against Sanjeeva Rao and accused. He pleaded ignorance as to the dismissal of interim order filed in the above suit.
24.P.w.6 who is stated to be eye-witness and crucial witness to the case of the prosecution, who turned hostile and pleaded ignorance as to the facts of the case. However, in cross-examination he amitted that accused No.1 is having agricultural land situated at Allipuram which is 300 metres far from his agricultural land.
Pg.No.13 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
25.In the cross-examination of P.w.7 who is stated to be panchwitness for
CDF, he failed to state the house number as mentioned in Ex.P.3. P.w.7 denied that the suggation that P.ws.1 and 2 are his close relatives. P.w.7 admitted that in rough sketch map there are no contents revealing the agricutural fields of
P.w.5 and further admitted that the boundaries of scene of offence were shown by the concerned police. He further admitted that P.w.3 is the close relative of
P.ws.1 and 5. P.w.7 further stated that M.O.s1 and 2 were shown to him at the time of their seizure. He further admitted that there is no mention in column
No.7 of Ex.P.3 about blood stained marks on M.Os.1 and 2.
26. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.w.8/medical officer that when the injured came to their hospital with injuries, they did not inform to any police station situated at Khammam. P.w.8 also admitted that he did not mentioned the date of issuance of MC in Ex.P.4. P.w.8 pleaded ignorance as to for how many days the injured was treated as inpatient in Khammam
Government Hospital. P.w.8 denied the suggestion that P.w.5 sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.4 due to accident and no person beat him with sticks.
27.In cross-examination of P.w.9/Investigating officer, he admitted that as per charge sheet, it is not revealed that P.w.5 was admitted in Government Hospital.
He further admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof/case sheet to show that he had visited Srujana Hospital on 01.03.2022, further stated that he had not collected any documentary proof from P.w.1 or her family members to show that whether the agricultural land is existing in Sy.No.500/E which belongs to
P.w.5. It is further elicited that except P.ws.2 and 3 he did not examine the owners or workers of the neighbouring agricultural land of the scene of offence. He further
Pg.No.14 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 admitted that he had examined Ravuri Venkateswar Rao and Peraboina Laxmaiah who are having agricultural lands towards northern side of scene of offence and further admitted that as per Ex.P.1, P.w.1 did not mention that the alleged incident took place in between the agricultural fields of Peraboina Laxmaiah and Ravuri
Venkateswar Rao, he further denied all the material suggestions given by the learned counsel for the accused.
28.In order or prove wrongful confinement and attempt to murder, the prosecution is relying on the testimony of PWs.1 to 5, who are the family members and circumstantial witnesses of the injured, PW.5 is the injured, who sustained injuries in the hands of the accused. PW.7 is the panch witness for the Crime
Details Form. PW.8 is doctor, who treated the PW.5. PW.6 is the prime witness, who witnessed the incident viz., Ravuri Veeraiah. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer.
29. On careful scruity of testimonies of PW.1, 2 and 5, who are the wife and brother of the injured, who clearly testified that there is a civil dispute in between the both families. The mother of the PW.5 i.e., K. Kanthamma, who has alienated the land to one Barla Sanjeeva Rao, who is none other than the younger brother of
Kanthamma. Sanjeeva Rao is the father of accused No.1 and 2. Moreover, the accused are cultivating the said disputed land. In the present case on hand, the counsel for accused filed a memo along with the order passed by the V Addl.
Junior Civil Judeg-cum-Prohibition and Excise, Court, Khammam in IA.No.2/2022
dated 6.03.2023 and copy of plaint in OS.No.1014/2022 filed by the PW.5 against
the accused No.1, 2 and one Chiranjeevi seeking perpetual injunction. As per the order passed by the V Addl. Junior Civil Judeg-cum-Prohibition and Excise, Court,
Khammam dated 06.03.2023, the interim order dated 4.08.2022 is vacated by dismissing the said IA.No.2/2022. The contention of the counsel for accused is that
Pg.No.15 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 there is a clear property disputes in between the both families regarding the
Sy.No.500/E, when the injured approched the Civil Court by filing a suit for perpetual injunction by claiming his right, thereafter injunction order was vacated.
As such, it prima facie appears that the family members of the injured filed false complaint against this accused persons claiming the property. Moreover, the property which is belongs to the accused persons, the same was purchased by the father of accused No.1 from the mother of PW.5. His contention is that there is inconsistency in between the testimony of prosecution witnesses, further the investigating Officer did not file any documentary proof regarding the admission of the PW.5 in Srujana Hospital, Khammam.
30.As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, their contention is that the accused
No.1 to 4, who were attacked the PW.5 with sticks while the PWs.2 and 5 are coming from agriculture fields. In the present case on hand, as per the contents of
Ex.P.1, PW.2 is also one of the injured, but the investigating agency did not collect any medical report of PW.2 to prove whether he has sustained any injuries in that alleged galata. PW.2 and PW.6 are witnessses the said incident. As per the record, which is clear that none of the agriculturists were present at the time of the alleged incident. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the injured was shifted to the Government hospital in 108 ambulance, but from which place they have shifted the injured/PW.5 is not reflected in the charge sheet, the investigating Officer did not reveal that the PW.5 was admitted in Government
Hospital, which is admitted by the PW.9. As per the contents of charge sheet he was admitted in Srujana hospital and recorded the statement of PW.5 in the said hospital. The investigating agency fails to place the said record before this Court.
The testimony of PW.9 is contrary to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5.
Pg.No.16 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
31.On careful scrutiny of evidence of PWs.1 to 5, which is clear that there is a serious Civil disputes in between both families. The testimony of PWs.1 to 5 is corroborated, but the counsel for accused elicited that the PW.1, PW.4 and PW.5 are the family members, PWs.2 and 3 are the relatives of PWs.1 and 5. Except, the family members, the investigating agency did not record any statements of circumstantial witnesses, who were present at the time of the alleged incident. As per the testimony of PW.2 when the alleged incident took place he rushed to the fields of Ravuri Veeraiah, who is examined as PW.6, and eye witness of this incident. But, he has denied entire case of the prosecution. The testimony of PW.6 is contrary to the case of prosecution, the prosecution fails to elicit that PW.6 witnessed the alleged incident.
32.PW.6 is prime witness of this case, who obstructed the accused while they alleged to beat the PW.5 and informed the said incident to the PW.3. His evidence is not at all supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied the contents of
Ex.P.2, his testimony is inconsistent to the case of the prosecution.
33.PW.2 who accompanied with PW.5, he was cited as eye witness of this incident, who clearly admitted that when the alleged incident was occurred no other independent land owners came to their rescue PW.7 is one of the relative of
PW.2. The counsel for accused elicited that the testimonyu of PW.1, PW.2, PW.5,
PW.6 are inconsistence.
34.Regarding the wrongful confinement and attempt to murder, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients as well as to depend on the medical evidence. The testimony of PWs.1 to 5 is inconsistency regarding shifting of PW.5 to the
Government hospital, Khammam. In one version they stated that the PW.5 was
Pg.No.17 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 shifted to Srujana hospital and in another verson they reveals that he was admitted in Government Hospital, Khammam. But, the prosecution could not establish oral or documentary evidence regarding the admission of the PW.5 in
Srujana hospital. Except the testimony of PW.8, who treated the PW.5, none of the doctors of Srujana hospital were examined to elicit that the PW.5 was took the treatment at Srujana Hospital. The contention of the counsel for accused is that which is a medico legal case, but the victim himself went to the hospital and admitted as a inpatient. The case of prosecution is that the PW.5 took treatment at Srujana Hospital, but no single document is placed by the prosecution. PW.8 did not mention the case history in Ex.P.4, which is one of the lacuna of the case of the prosecution.
35.The counsel for accused elicited that PW.9, who clearly admitted that he did not collect the Medical record of the PW.5 to show he was admitted in Srujana hospital, which is one of the lacuan to the case of prosecution. On 1.03.2022, he has visited the said hospital, but no record reveals the said fact. Regarding the
Civil dispute, he did not collect any documentary proof to substantiate that PW.5 is having agriculture land at Sy.No.500/E.
36. The testimony of prosecution witness reveals that there is inconsistency in between the occural and documentary evidence/medical evidence. As per the testimony of eye witness i.e., PW.6 which is not supported the case of prosecution, even though the prosecution produce the property, which is contrary to the Ex.P.3.
As per the testimony of prosecution witnesses, they fails to prove the intention of the accused persons, at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution agency fails to prove the injuries sustained by the PW.5, the testimony of prosecution witness which is not supported the medical evidence. The prime witness i.e., PW.6
Pg.No.18 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 who could not support the case of prosecution as he has denied that he has witnessed the incident, the testimony of panch witness/PW.7 is contrary to the seizure of the property. On careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which prima-facie appears that they are having serious family disputes in between the families of PW.1 and accused.
37. The Court emphasis to prove that the accused is having intention or knowledge on the distiguishing factor between section 307 of IPC attempt to murder and lesser offence like grievous hurt. In the present case on hand, the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused his act is likely to cause death. As per the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution must prove the capable of causing death, in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries sustained by the PW.5.
38. As per the record, the prosecution witnesses are family members and relatives of victim, PW.1, the ingestigating agency himself admitted that he did not examine the neighbours of scene of offence or workers who are available at the time of the alleged incident. As the incident was occurred during evening hours.
The testimonies of PWs.1 to 5 is inconsistency regarding the alleged incident and crucial witness i.e., PW.6, who is eye witness to this incident, his testimony is not supported to the case of the prosecution. As such, this Court discarded the evidence of PW.6, moreover, the medical evidence is also not supported to the case of prosecution, due to lack of investigation, the PW.9 did not collect any medical record to know whether PW.5 sustained injuries in the hands of accused
No.1 to 3, there is no record reveals that the accused persons with dishonest intention attacked the PW.5. In the absence of meterial evidence, inconsistency in between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has fails to
Pg.No.19 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024 prove the intention, knowledge on part of the accused to attempt to kill PW.5.
Hence, in view of the above discussion this court found that accused are entitled for acquittal.
39.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the off ence under Sections 294(b), 341, 307 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.
MO.1 is one stick length of 3 feet and MO.2 is three sticks length of 2½ feet (vide CPR No.8/2024), shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Dictated to Stenographer, trascribed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: K. Vijayakumari P.W.2: B. Ramulu P.W.3: B. Anjaiah P.W.4: K. Jaswanth P.W.5: K. Srinivasa Rao P.W.6: R. Veeraiah P.W.7: K. Mahendranath P.W.8: Ch. Mounika P.W.9: M. Ramesh Kumar
FOR DEFENCE: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.7 on CDF and rough sketch. Ex.P.4: Medical certificate of PW.5. Ex.P.5: Original First Information Report.
Pg.No.20 of 20 S.C.No.13/2023, dt:22.10.2024
FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1: One stick length of 3 feets. MO.2: Three sticks length of 2½ feets.
Sd/-
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KHAMMAM.
***