CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 1 of 6
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS
AT :: THUNGATHURTHY
Present: Sri. M. Sai Kumar,
Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,
Thungathurthy.
Monday, 03 rd day of January, 2022
C.C No. 23 of 2016
Between:- The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S, Thirumalagiri (Cr.No. 95/2015)… Complainant AND
1. Arra Veeramallu, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 48 Yrs, Occ: Linemen
(TSPDCL),
2. Arra Prashanth, S/o Veeramallu, Age: 21 years, Occ: Student,
3. Kandukuri Chandraguptha @ Babji, S/o Nagarjuna, Age: 20 Yrs, All are R/o. Thirumalagiri (V&M).
...Accused
Nature of offence: This is a case of road traffic accident.
Section of law:324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC
Pleaofthe:Pleaded not guilty accused
Finding of the:Found not guilty Court
Sentenceor:In the result, the accused is found not guilty orderfor the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted of the said offence, under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands cancelled subject to section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., chappal and Stick shall be destroyed on completion of appeal period. -o0o-
This case is coming on 31-12-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. K.Shanker for the State- complainant and in the presence of Sri T. Hari Charan counsel for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 2 of 6
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of police, PS Thirumalagiri filed charge sheet for the offences U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short IPC) by registering in Cr.No.95/2015.
2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that complainant
Kadem Mallaiah lodged police complaint stating that on 18.08.2015 about 9.00PM while he along with Lws 2 to 4 together laying pipes in the narrow street of Chinnapu Reddy hospital, at the same time A1 to A3 and Kanduri Tingu came there and abused them in filthy language on the ground that without permission how they are laying pipe lines and beat them with hands and kicked with legs. A2 beat Lw2 with Chappal on his back and whereas
Tingu beat lw2 with stick over his leg. Further all the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences of killing. As such, prayed for taking action. Basing on the above complaint Lw9 registered a case in Cr.No.95/2015 U/sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation Lw9 recorded the statement of Lws 1 and 2 and referred them to UPHC
Thungathurthy for treatment and certificate. Later visited crime scene and secured Lws 6 and 7 for conducting crime scene panchanama and seized one Chappal and one stick under cover of panchanama and also drown rough sketch. Later on 21.08.2015
Lw9 served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice on accused persons, wherein A1 to
A3 surrendered before him confessing their guilt. On such they produced sureties as such they were released on station bail. As per the statements of Lws 2 to 5, the involvement of Tingu is not made out as such by deleting him on receipt of medical certificate from Lw8, Lw9 completed investigation and laid charge sheet.
3.Upon available material on record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against accused.
On appearance of accused, he was served with case papers as per
CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 3 of 6 section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C). Accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the allegations leveled in the charge sheet and a charge for the offence U/Sec.
324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, for which he denied the same and claiming to be tried.
4.At trial, prosecution examined Pws1 and 2 and exhibited the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, Pw1 is the complainant. Pw2 is the injured. Lrd. APPO given up the evidence of all other witnesses including investing officers.
5.On completion of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence available against them on record as such the examination of A1 to A3 under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
6.Heard both sides perused the record.
Now the point for determination is whether the
prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused for
the offences U/Sec. 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all
reasonable doubts?
POINT:
7.The simple case of prosecution is that A1 to A3 and 1. Kanduri
Tingu beat Pw2 with Chappal on his back and A3 beat with the over his left leg and caused injury and the all the accused persons threatened the Pw2 with dire consequences of killing is the in order to prove the same prosecution relied on the Pws 1 and 2 such Pw1 is the complainant, eye witness Pw2 is the victim to injured.
Though prosecution cross examined them as Pws 1 and 2 but they both failed to depose any particular of the case to substantiate the version of prosecution. Further Pw1 went to depose to the incident that his family members obtained his signature and blank papers as such do not know the contents of police complaint however
CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 4 of 6 identified his signature as Ex.P1. Pw.2 the victim himself deposed that he feel out from the centric slab in sustained injuries as victim also turned hostile without deposing any facts of the case as such the learned APP cross examined them by conflicting their 161
Cr.P.C statement but they denied under Ex.P2 and P3 as such no other witnesses evidence is require to be examined as such the
Learned APP the evidence of others witnesses those prosecution failed to establish the guilt the all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted of the said offence, under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him and after
correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 03rd of January, 2022.
Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Thungathurthy.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW-1(LW1): Kadem Mallaiah – Complainant. PW-2(LW2): P. Kumar – Injured.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED:
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1: Portion of signature of Pw1 on Police Complainant. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1.
CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 5 of 6 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2.
FOR DEFENCE: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil
Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Thungathurthy
CC No. 23 of 2016
Page No. 6 of 6
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT
Thungathurthy
CC No.60/201 7
1Calendar Case No.60/2017 2Name of P.S. Jaipur 3Section of LawSec 325 IPC 4Crime No.38/2017 5Name and 1. Enreddy Narayana S/o Chandraiah, age description of 42 years, accusedOcc: coolie R/o Kistapur village
2. Pendli Raji Reddy S/o Narasinhareddy, age 44 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o Kistapur village (died and hence the case against A2 is abated) 6Date of offence8.2.2017 Date of Complaint8.2.2017 8Date of 18.2.2017 Apprehension 9Release on bail18.2.2017 10 Commencement of28.01.2021 Trial 11Date Close of Trial15.2.2021 12Date of Judgment18.2.2021 13Reasons for delay–
14.Sentence/orderIn the result, accused no.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences under section 379, 447 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stands canceled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CP No.82/2016 shall be handed over to LW1 on proper identification and on acknowledgment.
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
CHENNUR
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
Lr.Dis.NO.______/2021, dt:_____________