Sri M. satish

1 CC No.30 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: JAGTIAL

Present:Sri. M.Satish Kumar, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.30 of 2015

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarangapur (Cr. No.11 of 2015) …Complainant

A N D

A1. Myada Chandraiah s/o. Narsaiah, 45 years, A2. Myada Mallaiah s/o. Narsaiah, 56 years, Both are caste by Munnuru Kapu, r/o. Thungur village. … Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming before me on 2.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and Sri. M.Ilaiah, Advocate for Accused No.1 and 2, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The SI of Police, Police Station, Sarangapur has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.326 r/w 34 of the IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: on 3.2.2015 at 9.00 am the defacto complainant M.Bhumaiah (LW1) came to police station and lodged complaint stating that, they are three brothers and his elder and younger brother jointly succeeded and cultivating their ancestral land to an extent of Ac.10-00 guntas without giving his share of land and in this regard, two to three times panchayats held. On 3.2.2015 at 6.30 am while he was talking with his elder brother

M.Mallaiah (A2), his younger brother M.Chandraiah (A1) came to him 2 CC No.30 of 2015 from backside and beat him with iron rod on head and when he turned back his elder brother M.Mallaiah also beat him with iron rod on right hand, due to which he received severe injury. The incident was witnessed by A.Rayamallu (LW2) and B.Venkati (LW3). Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, M.Naresh, SI of Police, Sarangapur (LW7) registered a case in Cr. No.11 of 2015 for the offence U/Sec.326 r/w 34 of

IPC. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence drafted CDF panchanama in the presence of G.Damodar (LW4) and U.Santhosh (LW5). On 25.2.2015, LW7 apprehended accused No.1 and 2 and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed offence.

After completion of investigation LW7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.The court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.325 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused No.1 and 2 are examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.325 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the time of judgment this court noticed that earlier the accused ought to have charged U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC as the charge was not taken, as such, at this stage U/Sec.216

Cr.P.C. this court has re-opened the case and examined the accused again U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., charge for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC 3 CC No.30 of 2015 has framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in

Telugu.

7.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. After framing charge against the accused U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC, the counsel for the accused and prosecution reported no further evidence.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were brought to their knowledge U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination :-

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.325 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 are own brothers.

There are disputes between them with regard to property issues keeping same in mine on 3.2.2016 at 6.30 am while PW1 talking with A2, A1 came there and bet PW1 with iron rod and A2 also beat PW1 on the right hand with iron rod, thereby PW1 received grievous injuries and PW2 and

PW5 witnessed the said incident. Thereby A1 and A2 committed offence

U/Sec.326 r/w 34 of IPC.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant he deposed that accused No.2 is his elder brother and A1 is his younger brother there were property disputes between them. Panchayats also held several times before the 4 CC No.30 of 2015 elders but matter not settled. He further deposed that about 3years back at 6.00 am, he went to join she buffaloes in to village she buffaloes and while returning home when he reached Janda Chowrastha, where A2 asked him to stop, then he stopped meanwhile A1 came from backside armed with iron rod and beat him on his head and A2 also beat him with iron rod on right shoulder and also beat on his right hand when he turned to A2 side. PW5 and other witnesses witnessed said incident and he fall on the ground due to injuries and later he was shifted to home.

On the same day he lodged complaint to police, Police referred him to

Govt. Area Hospital Jagtial, from where he referred to Mohan Reddy

Hospital, Jagtial where he was treated as in patient for 10 days.

13.In the cross examination he deposed that 50 or 60 persons present at scene of offense at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion A1 and A2 not beat him with regard to land dispute.

14.PW2 said to be eye witness to incident deposed on the date of incident about 6.30 am he went along with his she buffaloes in to the mob of she buffaloes to graze them near Narsimha Swamy Temple A1 and A2 beat PW1 with iron rod and along with him PW5 also witnessed the said incident.

15.In the cross examination the distance between his house and scene of offense is about ½ kilometer. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident that A1 and A2 beat PW1.

16.PW3 is the witness for CDF he did not supported prosecution case and stated that when he was near house of Prathap Rao in his village,

Police called him and obtained his signature pertaining criminal case of

A1, A2 and PW1.

5 CC No.30 of 2015

17.At the request of learned APP Pw.3 declared hostile and learned

APP cross examined him with the permission of the court and nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution. Hence Pw3 evidence is no way useful to the prosecution.

18.PW4 another mediator for CDF deposed that police conducted CDF panchanama at Venugopala Swamy Temple and water tank and at his shop and also police drafted rough sketch and at that time PW3 also present.

19.In the cross examination deposed that his shop is situated very near to scene of offense.

20.PW5 is the another eye witness to the incident he deposed that on the date of incident at 6.00 am while proceeding his she buffaloes to graze them when he reached Janda Gadde A1 and A2 beat PW1 with iron rod on head on that PW1 received bleeding injuries. Further deposed that duet o bearing of A2 PW1 received injuries to right hand and at that time along with other villagers also witnessed incident.

21.In the cross examination PW5 deposed that there are land disputes between PW1, A1 and A2 and in that regard panchayat held. The distance between his house and scene of offense is about ½ kilo meter.

22.PW7 is the Medical Officer he deposed that on 3.2.2015 at 10.25 am on requisition of Police Sarangapur he examined PW1 and found injuries 1) Laceration 7 x 1 x ½ cm over right side scalp, 2) laceration 8 x ½ x ½ cm on right forearm, 3) Right shoulder pain and he advised right shoulder X-Ray and as per X-Ray report it shows that acromion process 6 CC No.30 of 2015 and referral to ortho surgeon and general surgeon regular taken, the third injury is grievous in nature.

23.In the cross examination he deposed that he took the radiologist opinion and he did not gave treatment to injury No.3 and it is given by orthopedic surgeon.

24.PW6 is the Investigating Officer he deposed that after receiving

Ex.P1 after registration of case he issued FIR he referred PW1 to Hospital and after arrest of accused and completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

25.In the cross examination PW6 deposed that as per CDF he visited scene of offence and as per the FIR he was at police station till 9.30 am on 3.2.2015. FIR received by the court on 16.2.2015 at 4.30 pm. He further deposed that he did not seize blood stained cloth of PW1.

26.As per Ex.P1 Report incident occurred on 3.2.2015 about 6.30 am and police report lodged on the same day at 9.00 am therefore there is no delay in lodging police report. PW1 categorically deposed that on the date of incident about 6.00 am he went to join his she buffaloes in village buffaloes for grazing while returning to home when he reached

Janda Chowrastha in village A2 asked him to stop meanwhile A1 came from back side armed with iron rod beat him on his head and A2 also beat him with iron rod on this right shoulder and right hand. Pw5 witnessed the said incident. As per Ex.P1 Report PW2 also witnessed the said incident and eye witness PW2 also supported version of PW1 that he also went to along with his she buffaloes to leave them in the village buffaloes for grazing and near Narsimha Swamy temple he found A1 and

A2 beat PW1 on head and hands. PW5 also witnessed the said incident.

7 CC No.30 of 2015

PW5 another eye witness to the said incident he also supported version of PW2 that on the day of incident when he reached Janda Gadde of village A2 and A2 beat PW1 with iron rod each on the head of PW1 and due to beating of A2 PW1 received bleeding injuries. Therefore evidence of PW1 is corroborating with the eye witnesses Pws.2 and 5. And also the PW7 evidence PW1 received laceration 7 x 1 x ½ cm over right side scalp injures on right side scalp and laceration 8 x ½ x ½ cm on right fore arm and right shoulder pain and acromion process taken and he found injury No.3 is grievous in nature. As per the evidence of PW1 A1 beat him with iron rod on his head and A2 beat him on right shoulder and on the right hand. Though as per evidence of PW1 the injury caused by A1 is simple in nature and injury caused by A2 is simple and grievous in nature of injury No.3. Therefore the evidence of PW1 also supported with the medical evidence. The A1 and A2 charged with Sec.34 of IPC.

The Sec.34 of IPC is read as follows:

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Therefore, as per section 34 of IPC though injury is committed by

A1 is simple in nature, but as per the evidence of PW1 while PW1 was coming on the road, A2 asked him to stop then he stopped,then A1 came from his back side armed with iron rod and beat him and A2 also beat him with iron rod therefore this part of evidence of PW1 shows that A1 and A2 are in furtherance of common intention only beat PW1 with iron rods each. Though in this case investigation officer not seized the crime weapon but is not fatal to the case of prosecution though Investigation

Officer not collected the radiologist report but, the mistake committed 8 CC No.30 of 2015 by the Investigation Officer cannot extend benefit to the accused.

Moreover the independent eye witnesses Pws.2 and 5 categorically supported the version of PW1 and their evidence also supported by medical evidence, though it is admitted fact that A1, A2 and PW1 are own brothers and there were property disputes between them but there is no reason to depose by the independent witnesses to speak falsehood against A1 and A2. Though the counsel for the accused cross examined

Pws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 but nothing elicited to discard their evidence.

Further in this case there is no provocation by the PW1 in committing the offence by the accused No.1 and 2. Hence, as per the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 5 and 7 the prosecution proved that the accused committed offense

U/Sec.325 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted.

27.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.325 and 324 r/w 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

28.When questioned about the quantum of sentence imposed against the Accused No.1 and 2, they stated that they are having wives and old age parents depending on them and they are the sole bread winners of their family and prayed this court to take lenient view. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX (06)

MONTHS each for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of the 9 CC No.30 of 2015

IPC. Further accused No.1 and 2 sentenced under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of TWO (02) YEARS each and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine amount accused No.1 and 2 shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (01) MONTH each for the offence punishable

U/Sec.325 r/w 34 of the IPC. The total fine amount is of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).All the above mentioned sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused

No.1 and 2 shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

29.In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of P.O. Act.

30.The accused No.1 and 2 are appraised of their right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment.

31.The accused No.1 and 2 are remanded to judicial custody on 25.2.2015 and released on 26.2.2015, hence the remand period from 25.2.2015 to 26.2.2015 is ordered to be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – M.Bhumaiah PW2 – B.Venkati PW3 – G.Damodhar PW4 – U.Santhosh PW5 – A.Rayamallu PW6 – M.Naresh 10 CC No.30 of 2015

PW7 – Dr. P.Srujan

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 – Police Report Ex.P2 – Signature of PW3 on CDF Ex.P3 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P4 – First Information Report Ex.P5 – Medical Certificate.

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

1 CC No.331 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: JAGTIAL

Present:Sri. M.Satish Kumar, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.331 of 2016

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarangapur (Cr. No.98 of 2016) …Complainant

A N D

Bandari Rajaiah s/o. Bhumaiah, 40 years, Kurma, r/o. Sarangapur village and mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 10.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and Sri. M.Ilaiah, Advocate for Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The SI of Police, Police Station, Sarangapur has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.326 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: on 13.11.2016 at 9.00 pm the complainant/S.Rajaiah/LW1 came to the police station and lodged complaint stating that, since long time there are difference between his family, his brother-in-law i.e., accused and sister-in-law with regard to land gave by his in-laws. Panchayats were also held regarding the land disputes. Keeping the disputes in mind on 13.11.2016 at 6.00 pm his brother-in-law i.e., accused herein abused his wife, bet her with stick on her head. After grazing sheep when he came to home he noticed his wife on the road with injuries, immediately he shifted her to

Govt. Hospital, Jagtial in Auto and admitted her for treatment. He 2 CC No.331 of 2016 further informed that the incident witnessed by neighbours i.e., Rasa

Rama (LW3) and Athini Rajitha (LW4). Hence requested to take necessary action.

3.On the basis of said report, Lw.9/T.Ranadheer Kumar, SI of Police,

PS Sarangapur has registered a case in Cr. No.98 of 2016 for the offence

U/Sec.326 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of witnesses. Later visited scene of offence examined and recorded statements of witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted CDF along with sketch map in the presence of Jala Mallesh (LW6) and Bhonagairi

Naresh (LW7). Later on 1.12.2016 at 10.00 am LW9 apprehended accused and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. On completion of arrest formalities produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.The court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.326 of the IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 and P8.

3 CC No.331 of 2016

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were brought to his knowledge U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination :-

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offences U/Sec.326 of IPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and PW3 aren brother and sisters there are disputes with regard to ancestral properties and panchayats were also held but disputes not settled. On 13.11.2016 at 6.00 pm while PW3 proceeding to her house along with her grand daughter/PW2, keeping the old disputes in mind the accused abused

PW3 in filthy language and beat her with stick on her head due to that

PW3 received bleeding injuries. Hence the accused said to have committed offense U/Sec.326 of IPC.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant and husband of PW3 he deposed that the accused is his brother-in-law and on the date of incident he went to graze sheep and returned home at 6.00 pm and found his wife

PW3 fall on the ground near the house and blood oozing from her head.

On enqury, his grand daughter i.e. PW2 informed to him that the accused beat PW3 on the head of his wife with stick, then he shifted his wife in ambulance to Govt. Area Hospital, Jagtial and later shifted to private hospital. On the same day he lodged Ex.P1 Report.

4 CC No.331 of 2016

13.In the cross examination PW1 deposed that police drafted Ex.P1

Report on his instructions and he put his thumb impression and he do not know contents of police report.

14.PW2 grand daughter of PW1 deposed that she did not support prosecution case stating that she do not anything about the facts of the case.

15.PW3 injured she deposed that the accused is her own brother there are property disputes between them. On the date of incident about 6.00 pm while she was proceeding on road when she reached in front of her house, the accused came to her and started abusing her in filthy language and beat her with stick on her forehead and escaped from there, due to which, she received bleeding injury and fall on the ground. Later PW1 came there and shifted her to hospital. Initially she was shifted to Govt. Hospital and later shifted to Private Hospital at

Jagtial.

16.In the cross examination she denied suggestion that due to disputes with the accused she foisted false case against the accused.

17.PW4 said to be eye witness to the incident did not support prosecution case and turned hostile.

18.PW5 is another eye witness to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case.

19.PW6 panch witness for CDF deposed that police did not conduct scene of offence panchanama in his presence and about one year back when he was proceeding to his agricultural field, near Gas company 5 CC No.331 of 2016 office at his village Sarangapur, police stopped him and obtained his signature on some papers without disclosing any reason.

20.PW7 deposed that about 1 ½ years back police came to the house of sister of accused situated in front of gas agency and conducted scene of offence panchanama and obtained his signature.

21.PW8 medical officer deposed that previously he worked as Private

Consultant in Suraksha Hospital, Jagtial. On 14.11.2016 at 10.00 am

PW3 came to his hospital and he examined and found injuries i.e., lacerated wound on forehead measuring 6 to 7 cms, deep 2 to 3 cms and it was grievous in nature. PW3 discharged from the hospital on 21.11.2016.

22.In the cross examination PW8 deposed that in Ex.P7 - Medical

Certificate he did not mention measurements of injury, and further deposed that he verified the case sheet of PW3 day before giving evidence as such, he deposed measurements of the injury. Further deposed that PW3 under gone CT Scan as such he did not refer for the same. Further deposed that as per CT Scan report he found the subdural hemorrhage, fracture of right frontal bone, fracture line extending to superior orbital region, soft tissue swelling right frontal region as such the said injury not possible if a person fall on hard surface and the said injury can be possible hit with any weight objects or due to use of any external force.

23.PW9 Investigation Officer deposed that PW1 came to police station on 13.11.2016 and lodged Ex.P1 Report, basing on it he registered case and issued FIR to the concerned and examined witnesses, visited scene 6 CC No.331 of 2016 of offense and conducted CDF and apprehended the accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

24.In the cross examination he deposed that he do not find the crime weapon stick as such he did not seize the same.

25.At the request of learned APP, Pws.2, 4 and 5 declared hostile and learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court and nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution. Hence Pws.2 4 and 5 evidence is no way useful to the prosecution.

26. The injured PW3 categorically deposed that on the date of incident while she was proceeding on road at 6.00 pm, when she reached in front of her house, the accused came to her and started abusing her in filthy language, beat her on head with stick, on that she received bleeding injuries and fall on the ground. On that PW1 shifted her to Hospital. PW1 husband of injured though he is not an eye witness to the incident he found her wife near to her house oozing blood from her head, then he enquired with PW2, on that she informed that accused beat her/PW3 on her head with stick, then he/PW1 shifted her to Govt.

Area Hospital Jagtial from there shifted to private hospital at Jagtial. Pws.

2, 4 and 5 who are the eye witnesses though they did not support prosecution case but, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. PW2 is the

Grand Daughter of Pws.1 and 3, PW3 is the sister of accused, as such, the accused becomes Grand Father to PW2. PW2 being relative of the accused, she might be not support prosecution case. PW3 evidence also supported with medical evidence of PW8. Moreover, there is no delay in lodging Ex.P1 Report, as per Ex.P1 report the incident occurred on 13.11.2016 at 6.00 pm and the Ex.P1 lodged on the same day at 21.00 hours, therefore, there is no delay in lodging Ex.P1. No doubt the 7 CC No.331 of 2016

Investigation Officer not seized the crime weapon i.e., stick, but it is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of PW8

Medical Officer, on 14.11.2016 at 10.00 am PW3 came to Surakaha

Hospital, Jagtial and as per evidence of PW1, initially PW3 shifted to

Govt. Area Hospital, Jagtial, thereafter PW3 shifted to private hospital i.e., Suraksha Hospital. Though the Investigation Officer not collected the Medical Certificate pertain to treatment of PW3 from Govt. Area

Hospital, Jagtial but, it is also not a fatal to the case of prosecution.

Admittedly, there were property disputes between PW3 and accused who none other than own brother and sisters. PW3 aged about 75 years, and the accused aged about 40 years. It shows that the accused while committing offence knowing that the PW3 is old aged person, he did not not consider her age and beat her with stick on her head and caused bleeding injuries to her as such, which is showing that the accused behaved in cruel manner. Hence as per the evidence of Pws.1, 3 coupled with Ex.P7, the prosecution proved the case against the accused for the offense U/Sec.326 of IPC and there is no provocation from PW3 to the accused.

27.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC, according the accused is convicted U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.326 of the IPC.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

8 CC No.331 of 2016

28.When questioned about the quantum of sentence imposed against the Accused, he stated that he is having three female children and his wife died recently and prayed this court to take lenient view. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the accused is sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO (02) YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine amount accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of FIFTEEN (15) DAYS for the offence punishable U/Sec.326 of the IPC. There is no remand period undergone by the accused to be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

29.In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of P.O. Act.

30.The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – S.Rajaiah PW2 – S.Gayatri PW3 – S.Narsavva PW4 – R.Rama PW5 – R.Rajitha PW6 – J.Mallesh PW7 – B.Naresh PW8 – Dr. M.Nikhil

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil - 9 CC No.331 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 – Police Report Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P5 – Signature of PW6 on CDF Ex.P6 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P7 – Medical Certificate Ex.P8 – First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

1 CC No.166 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: JAGTIAL

Present:Sri. M.Satish Kumar, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.166 of 2016

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarangapur (Cr. No.30 of 2016) …Complainant

A N D

Chatharasi Suresh s/o. Dubbaiah, age 21 years, Madiga, r/o. Battapalli village. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 9.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and Sri. R.Sriramulu, Advocate for Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The SI of Police, Police Station, Sarangapur has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.294 (b) and 506 of the IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: on 21.4.2016 at 10.00 am the complainant/P.Kavitha/LW1 came to the police station and lodged complaint stating that, she is resident of Battapalli village and working as Anganwadi Teacher. On 18.4.2016 at 3.00 pm while she was in the meeting at MPDO Officer, Sarangapur the accused came there, made gestures towards her indecently stating to come out, then she sent him out. After completion of meeting when she came out, on seeing her accused came to her and annoyed her by uttering abusive words and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her by alleging 2 CC No.166 of 2016 how dare to file a case against him and also followed her by threatening to see who will come to rescue her. Hence requested to take necessary action.

3.On the basis of said report, Lw.7/R.Ravinder Reddy, SI of Police, PS

Sarangapur has registered a case in Cr. No.30 of 2016 for the offence

U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited scene of offence, examined and recorded statements of witnesses and in the presence of Ch.Gangaiah (LW5) and B.Mallesham (LW6) he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted CDF. Later on 23.4.2016 at 9.00 am LW7 apprehended accused and on interrogation he voluntarily admitted to have committed offence. On completion of arrest formalities produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.

3 CC No.166 of 2016

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were brought to his knowledge U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination :-

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offences U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of IPC, beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution that PW1 and accused are relatives since one month the accused caused nuisance to PW1 in indecent manner making phone calls with an intention for personal interaction on that PW1 filed complaint U/Sec.354-D of IPC. The accused keeping the same in mind on 18.4.2016 at 3.00 pm, accused went in front of MPDO

Office at Sarangapur and annoyed the victim/PW1 by uttering words and criminally intimidated to kill then she filed case against him thereby the accused charged with Sec.294(b) and 506 of IPC.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant she is working as Anganwadi

Teacher and she deposed that on 18.4.2016 there was a meeting of

Anganwadi Teachers at MPDO Officer at Sarangapur and when she was in the meeting the accused went there and made obscene gestures from entrance door and also made gestures to her to come to him. On observing accused the MPDO and other members questioned him, on that he left from there. After completion of meeting when she came out and she was in the premises of MPDO Officer, the accused went to her, questioned her why she is not coming to him inspite of gestures and 4 CC No.166 of 2016 abused in filthy language, threatened her saying that he will see her end and also threatened that how she dare to file criminal case against him and he will kill her at any point of time. She placed matter before elders, but accused did not come there as such she lodged report with a delay of three days.

13.In the cross examination she denied that accused never threatened her and never mis-behaved with her. She also denied suggestion that she and her husband are in habit of filing of false case against the persons and used to collect amount from them. She also denied suggestion that her husband/PW2 borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,000/- from father of accused prior to lodging of earlier police report by her against the accused.

14.PW2 husband of the PW1 she deposed that PW1 informed above said incident to him then on the next day she went to police station and lodged report. He pleaded ignorance that prior to lodging earlier police report by PW1, father of accused gave police report at Sarangapur Police

Station that he due an amount of Rs.20,000/- to him and also denied suggestion that to evade payment of Rs.20,000/- to the father of accused this case and previously another criminal case foisted against the accused. He also denied suggestion that he due amount to one

T.Rajaiah and when he demanded to pay the amount he and PW1 gave false complaint against the said T.Rajaiah. PW2 deposed that said

T.Rajaiah abused him in filthy language in drunken stage as such he gave police report against Rajaiah.

5 CC No.166 of 2016

15.Pw3 is said to circumstantial witnesses deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and police asked him about incident but he stated to police that he do not know about the incident.

16.PW4 who filed charge sheet deposed that he took up investigation from PW7, verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

17.Pws.5 and 8 are the panch witness for CDF deposed that police did not conduct CDF in their presence but more than two years back when they were proceeding on road at Sarangapur police and near police station respectively, the Police obtained their signature on some papers without disclosing any reason.

18.At the request of learned APP Pws.5 and 8 declared hostile and learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court and nothing is elicited in favour of the prosecution. Hence Pws.5 and 8 evidence is no way useful to the prosecution.

19.PW6 is the circumstantial witness deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case.

20.PW7 is the First Investigating Officer deposed that on 21.4.2016 he received Ex.P1 Report basing on it he registered case and issued FIR to the concerned and took up investigation, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, conducted CDF and on 23.4.2016 he apprehended accused and produced them before the court for judicial remand and later handed over CD file to PW4.

6 CC No.166 of 2016

21.In the cross examination he deposed that there is a delay of three days in lodging Ex.P1 Report, he also deposed that MDPO office is situated besides Sarangapur Police Station.

22.PW8 is the another mediator for CDF deposed that police did not conducted scene of offence

23.The case of the prosecution is that the accused caused annoyance to PW1 previously then she filed criminal case in Cr. No.25 of 2016 for the offence U/Sec.354-D IPC keeping the same in mind when PW1 is in

MPDO office, the accused came there and annoyed PW1 by uttering abusive words and criminally intimidated PW1 to kill her thereby the accused committed offence U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC. PW1 categorically deposed that on 18.4.2016 there was Anganwadi Teachers meeting at MPDO Office as such, she went to attend said meeting and when she was in the officer in the said meeting the accused came there and made obscene gestures from entrance door and made gestures to her to come to him but, she did not went there and the MPDO and others who came to office also observed the accused and questioned him then the accused left from there. After completion of meeting the accused came there when she was in the premises of MPDO officer he came to her and questioned her why she is not responding in spite of giving gestures and abused her in filthy language and threatened her that he will see her end and also threatened how she was dare to file criminal case against him. PW2 is the husband of PW1 stated that he came to know about the incident through PW1. Moreover except Pws.1 and 2 evidence there is no other independent witnesses before the court.

When the counsel for the accused cross examined Pws.1 and 2 and gave suggestion that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from 7 CC No.166 of 2016 the father of the accused and to avoid the said payment, the Pws.1 and 2 foisted the present case and to substantiate his contention the accused not place any evidence before the court. Moreover as per the evidence of PW1 proves that the accused previously also harassed PW1 on that she filed criminal case against him and due to that grudge only the accused came to the MPDO office and threatened her that how she file criminal case against him. Therefore this court finds no reason to discard the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, though the circumstantial witnesses Pws.3 and 6 not supported the prosecution case on that ground alone the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushes aside.

Hence as per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of

Pws.4 and 7, the prosecution proved the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC.

24.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC, accordingly he is convicted

U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.294(b) and 506 of the IPC.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

25.When questioned about the quantum of sentence imposed against the Accused, he stated that he is having small children and prayed this court to take lenient view. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the accused is sentenced to under go Simple

Imprisonment for a period of TWO (02) MONTHS for the offence 8 CC No.166 of 2016 punishable U/Sec.294 (b) of the IPC. Further the accused sentenced under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX (06) MONTHS for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 of the IPC. All the above mentioned sentences shall run concurrently. There is no remand period undergone by the accused to be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

26.In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of P.O. Act.

27.The accused is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – P.Kavitha PW2 – P.Anjaiah PW3 – S.Srinivas PW4 – S.Krishna Swamy PW5 – Ch.Gangaiah PW6 – G.Suresh Kumar PW7 – R.Ravinder Reddy PW8 – B.Mallesham

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 – Police Report Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P3 – Signature of PW5 on CDF Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW6 Ex.P5 – First Information Report 9 CC No.166 of 2016

Ex.P6 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P7 – Signature of PW8 on CDF

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

1 CC No.208 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: JAGTIAL

Present:Sri. M.Satish Kumar, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

MONDAY, ON THIS THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.208 of 2016

(SPLIT UP FROM CC No.102 of 2014)

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kodimial (Cr. No.123 of 2011) …Complainant A N D A1. Bandar Kankaiah s/o. Pochaiah, 50 years, Madiga, A2. Bandar Bhagya w/o. Babu, 27 years, Madiga, A3. Bandar Babu s/o. Kankaiah, 30 years, Madiga, A4. Bandar Lachamma w/o. Kankaiah, 46 years, Madiga, All are r/o. Apparaopet H/o. Pudur village. … Accused No.1 to 4

Note: This is a split up case from CC No.102 of 2014 against accused No.3 only.

This case is coming before me on 9.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and Sri. D.Laxma Reddy,Advocate for Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The SI of Police, Police Station, Kodimial has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec.324, 326 r/w 34 of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: on 3.10.2011 at 9.45 am the complainant/N.Ravi/LW1 came to the police station and lodged complaint stating that, they along with accused are having joint agricultural electric motor well backside of his house. As per his turn, on 2.10.2011 at 10.30 pm he went to farm field and started electric motor 2 CC No.208 of 2016 to irrigate his paddy field and returned back to home, meanwhile accused persons came towards field abused him in filthy language questioning him as why he switched on electric motor as it was their turn to use water saying so, A2 beat on his fore head with stick. On hearing the quarrel, his elder brother N.Mahes came there to stop the quarrel, then A1 beat on the forehead of his elder brother and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.3 and 4 have pushed his grand father

Pochaiah away and beat him with hands. Meanwhile when his father came there the accused left them and escaped. Hence requested to take necessary action.

3.On the basis of said report, Lw.9/P.Venkateshwarlu, SI of Police, PS

Kodimial has registered a case in Cr. No.123 of 2011 for the offence

U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of witnesses. Later visited scene of offence examined and recorded statements and also drafted CDF in the presence of G.Raji Reddy (LW6) and R.Kista Reddy (LW7). Later on 5.10.2011 at 11.30 am the accused No.1 to 4 have appeared before LW9 on that he interrogated them, on that they voluntarily admitted to have committed offence. On completion of arrest formalities produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.Initially this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused No.1 to 4.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

3 CC No.208 of 2016

6.The accused No.1 to 4 are examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

8.As the NBWs against the accused No.3 is pending, the case against the accused No.3 is separated from this case and numbered as split up

CC No.208 of 2016 from main CC No.102 of 2014. As this case was

separated after completion of trial and on request of prosecution and the counsel for accused, the evidence which was already recorded in CC

No.102 of 2014 is considered in this case and after closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused No.3 were brought to his knowledge U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. examination, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination :-

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused No.3 for the offences U/Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution that on 2.10.2011 at 10.30 pm Pws.1 and 2 and the accused have joint electric motor well located behind their houses and both of them using said well for irrigation of their agricultural land on term basis. On 2.10.2011 at about 10.30 pm PW1 as per their term went to his field to irrigate the land and after switch on the electric 4 CC No.208 of 2016 motor while returning home Accused No.1 and 2 went there and abused

PW1 in filthy language as to why they are using the electric motor as today their turn to use saying so A2 beat on forehead of PW1 with stick and caused injury. Pws.2 and 3 intervened then A1 beat PW2 with torch light on that Pw2 received injury on head and forehead and Accused

No.3 and 4 pushed PW3 and beat him with hands. Meantime PW4 came there then the accused escaped from there thereby Accused No.1 to 4 charged with Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC.

12.PW1 is the defacto complainant deposed that on 2.10.2011 at he went to the field at 10.30 pm, at that time accused No.4 came and abused in filthy language why he using the motor for irrigating the land because it was their turn to use the motor then A2 beat him with stick on forehead, head and received injuries. PW2 came to the rescue of PW1 then A1 beat him with torch light on his forehead. When PW3 came to rescue him, Accused No.3 and 4 pushed him and beat him. As per evidence of PW1 he specifically stated that A3 pushed PW3 and beat him.

13.PW2 also supported the version of PW1 stating that Accused No.1 to 4 abused him and beat him and Pws.1 and 3. He further reported that accused also pushed his grand father i.e., PW3 as such he fell down. As per the evidence of PW3, Accused No.1 and 2 beat Pws.1 and 2 and

Accused No.3 and 4 pushed PW3 and beat him.

14.PW3 deposed that accused No.1 to 4 came abused them in filthy language and pushed him aside he also deposed that all the accused beat with stick and caused injuries on their arm but the said fact is not deposed by PW1. Whereas PW4 deposed that accused No.1 to 4 came 5 CC No.208 of 2016 there and abused them in filthy language and pushed PW3 aside and all the accused beat PW1 with stick and torch light and caused injuries on their head.

15.PW4 evidence also contradicting the evidence of PW1.

16.Whereas PW5 deposed that his house and Accused No.1 to 4 house side by side and on the date of incident he at 9.00 pm while he was present in front of his house he heard some noise then he went there and he noticed Pws.1 and 2 with head injury then he asked Pws.1 and 2 about said injuries of Pws.3 and 4 present there and informed accused No.1 to 4 quarreled with with regard to irrigation of field and accused No.1 to 4 beat PW1 with sticks.

17.Pws.6 and 7 deposed that police conducted CDF panchanama.

18.PW8 deposed that on 3.10.2011he received requisition from SHO

PS Kodimial and he examined Pws.1 and 2 and found injuries on PW1 i.e., Laceration 1 x ½ x ½ inch over forehead which is simple in nature and injuries on PW2 i.e., Laceration of 2 x ½ x ½ inch over forehead which is simple in nature and further he referred PW2 to CT Scan, as per

CT Scan report PW2 received fracture anterior wall left frontal sinus which is grievous in nature and caused with blunt object.

19.PW9 is the IO deposed that on 3.10.2011 PW1 lodged report at PS

Kodimial basing on it he registered case in Cr. No.123 of 2011 for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR to the concerned, recorded statements of Pws.1 to 4 and sent Pws.1 to 2 Govt. Area Hospital, Jagtial.

Later he visited scene of offence and prepared CDF in the presence of 6 CC No.208 of 2016

Pws.6 and 7 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

20.As per the prosecution evidence and evidence of PW1 the special over tacts of the accused No.3 is that, Accused No.3 pushed PW3 and also beat him. Whereas PW2 deposed that accused No.1 to 4 beat him and Pws.1 and 3. As per the evidence of PW3 all the accused beat Pws.1 to 3 with stick and caused injuries. PW4 also deposed that all the accused beat Pws.1 and 2 with stick and torch light and caused injuries.

As per the injury certificate Ex.P4 due to beating of the accused No.2 only PW1 received injury i.e., laceration 1 x ½ x ½ on forehead and due to beating of accused No.2 with torch light. PW2 received injury 2 x ½ x ½ over fore head which is grievous in nature. Though the accused charged with Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC, there is no evidence before the court that due to the acts of Accused No.3 Pws.1 and 2 received said injuries. Therefore prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.3 for the offence U/Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC but the prosecution prove the guilt of accused No.3 for the offence U/Sec.323 of IPC.

21.In the result, the accused No.3 is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec.323 of IPC and further he is not found guilty U/Sec.324 and 326 of

IPC, accordingly he is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence

U/Sec.323 of IPC and acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges

U/Sec.324 and 326 r/w 34.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

7 CC No.208 of 2016

22.When questioned about the quantum of sentence imposed against the Accused No.3, he stated that he is having old age parents and small children depending on him and he is the sole bread winners of his family and prayed this court to take lenient view. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the accused No.3 is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount accused No.3 shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO (02) MONTHS for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of the

IPC. The remand period undergone by the accused No.3 shall be set off

U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

23.In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of P.O. Act.

24.The accused No.3 is appraised of his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of August, 2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – N.Ravi PW2 – N.Mahesh PW3 – N.Pochaiah PW4 – M.Mallaiah PW5 – N.Rajaiah PW6 – G.Raji Reddy PW7 – R.Kista Reddy PW8 – T.Kalyana Chakravarthi PW9 – P.Venkateshwarlu 8 CC No.208 of 2016

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 – Police Report Ex.P2 – CDF along with rough sketch Ex.P3 – Medical Certificate of PW1 Ex.P4 – Medical Certificate of PW2 Ex.P5 – First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

1 CC No.363 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :AT: JAGTIAL

Present:Sri. M.Satish Kumar, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.363 of 2017

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarangapur (Cr. No.51 of 2018) …Complainant

A N D

Bhutagadda Lasmaiah s/o. Peddirajam, 35 years, Tenugu, r/o. Laxmidevipalli village. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 7.8.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. APP for the State and Sri. A.Narsaiah, Advocate for Accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The SI of Police, Police Station, Sarangapur has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.326 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: on 3.6.2010 at 8.30 pm the complainant/Ch.Malleshwari/LW1 came to the police station and lodged complaint stating that, some previous grudges are there in between Ch.Gangadhar (LW2) and accused. Keeping the grudges in mind on 2.6.2010 at 9.30 am, while P.Gangadhar (LW3) going to company of Ch.Malleshwari to attend work, the accused asked LW3 to attend coolie work but, LW3 refused to do so stating that he is going to attend work in the company of LW2. On that accused imagined that LW3 refused to do work due to sayings of LW2. Keeping that grudges in mind 2 CC No.363 of 2017 accused beat Ch.Gangadhar (LW2) with iron rod alleging that he is responsible for refusal of LW3 for not attending coolie work. Due to which LW2 sustained injuries. The same is witnessed by P.Gangadhar (LW3, B.Peddirajam (LW4) and T.Nayak (LW5). Hence requested to take necessary action.

3.On the basis of said report, Lw.10/A.Ramesh, SI of Police, PS

Sarangapur has registered a case in Cr. No.51 of 2010 for the offence

U/Sec.324 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of witnesses. Later visited scene of offence examined and recorded statements of

P.Gangadhar (LW3, B.Peddirajam (LW4), T.Nayak (LW5) and P.Laxman (LW6) and also drafted CDF in the presence of B.Ramesh (LW7) and

B.Redya Naik (LW8). Later on 5.6.2010 at 9.00 am LW10 apprehended accused and on interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. On completion of arrest formalities produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.The court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.326 of the IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, charge for the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.363 of 2017

7.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P3.

8.Since, there was no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination :-

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offences U/Sec.326 of IPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

11.The case of the prosecution that on 2.6.2010 at 9.30 am keeping previous grudges in mind the accused beat PW2 with iron rod due to which PW2 received bleeding injuries. Thus accused said to have committed offence U/Sec.326 of IPC.

12.PW1 is the complainant and wife of victim/ in this case deposed that the accused never beat her husband/PW2 and about 8 years back her husband fell on the ground and received injuries. She never lodged police report against the accused.

13.PW2 is the victim and husband of PW1 deposed that accused never beat him and about 8 years back he himself fall on the ground and received injuries.

14.PW3 is the eye witness to the incident deposed that he know the accused and he do not know the facts of the case.

4 CC No.363 of 2017

15.At the request of learned APP, Pws.1 to 3 declared hostile and learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court and nothing is state in favour of the prosecution. Hence Pws.1 to 3 evidence is no way useful to the prosecution. As the material witnesses Pws.1 to 3 turned hostile, the learned APP given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses.

16.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused beat PW2 with iron rod due to which PW2 received grievous injuries. On perusal of the entire evidence none of the witnesses have deposed against the accused. All the witnesses in one voice deposed that the accused never beat PW2 and he received injuries as he fell on the ground. PW3 who is eye witness to the incident did not support prosecution case and moreover the other two eye witnesses i.e., B.Peddirajam (LW4) and

T.Nayak (LW5) have died as such, on filing of report by the the prosecution, their evidence is closed. As the material witnesses did not support prosecution case the remaining listed witnesses were given up by the prosecution. On close perusal of the evidence it reveals that the accused might have compromised the matter with the witnesses in this case, that might be the reason due to which the Pws.1 to 3 might have resiled from their earlier version stated to the Police in their 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement. Thus the prosecution failed to prove to connect the accused with the alleged offence, as such, prosecution also failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.326 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the 5 CC No.363 of 2017 said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of August,

2018.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – Ch.Malleshwari PW2 – Ch.Gangadhar PW3 – P.Gangadhar

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.