C.C.No.928 of 2019 1 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
DISTRICT :: KRISHNA
CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF IN THE COURT OF
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)- CUM - II ADDITIONAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NUZVID.
Date of Offence : 16.07.2019
Date of Report or Complaint : 17.07.2019
Date of apprehension of accused : 26.07.2019
Date of accused released on bail : 26.07.2019
Date of commencement of Trial : 10.10.2022
Date of Closure of trial : 18.02.2025
Date of Sentence of Order of Court : 24.04.2025
Explanation for delay and remarks : Due to delay in service of summons to the witnesses.
Calendar Case No. : C.C.No.928/2019
Name and address of Complainant : State Represented by: The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction police station. (Cr.No.132/2019).
Name and address of the accused :
A-1: Sadaraboyina Naga Raju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 42 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
A-2: Sadaraboyina Durgamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 65 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
A-3: Sadaraboyina Swathi, W/o.Naga Raju, age 46 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
Offence : Sections 324 323and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Finding of Court : Guilty
C.C.No.928 of 2019 2 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
Sentence of Order of Court : In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under Sections 324 of IPC, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence under section 323 and 506 of IPC they are convicted under section 248(2) of crpc A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Six (6) MONTHS for the offence under section 324 of IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., each accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, if the accused Nos.1 to 3 fails to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The accused Nos.1 to A3 i.e.,each accused are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, if accused Nos.1 to 3 fails to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Period of imprisonment already underwent is to be set off, Punishments under Sections 324,323 and 506 of IPC shall run concurrently.
Sd.M.Siva Parvathi/- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishna.
// True copy //
II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 3 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)- CUM -
II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NUZVID
PRESENT: Smt M.Siva Parvathi,
II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - II Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
Thursday, this the 24 th day of April, 2025
C.C.No.928 of 2019
Between: State Represented by: The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction police station. (Cr.No.132/2019). … COMPLAINANT AND
A-1: Sadaraboyina Naga Raju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 42 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
A-2: Sadaraboyina Durgamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 65 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
A-3: Sadaraboyina Swathi, W/o.Naga Raju, age 46 years, C/Sagara, R/o.Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal.
... ACCUSED
This case came up before me for final hearing on 21.04.2025 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V.Sudhakar, Counsel
for the accused Nos.1 to 3, and upon hearing both sides and considering the
material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.LW.10/S.H.O of Hanuman Junction Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.132/2019 said to have been committed the offence punishable under Sections 324,323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 4 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that
(a)LW.1/Sattenapalli Venkateswaramma is mother of LW.2/Sattenapalli
Venkateswara Rao and wife of LW.3/Sattenapalli Nagireddy. LW.1 and 3 are living with L.W.2 and all are doing agricultural works. The concrete cement road is found in front of their house and a speed breaker is erected on cement road to prevent the accident of motor cycles and other vehicles. On 16.07.2019 morning the LW.1 requested A-1/Sadaraboyina Naga Raju to bring logs from the fields to her house.
On her request the A-1 brought the logs to her house by tying to his tractor while bringing the logs hit to the patch of speed breaker and ejected and broken and he moved away. Then the L.W.1 talking herself on broken of path speed breaker in the mean time the accused A1 arrived there and said that the speed breaker is broken by him and quarreled and pushed her with hands and bet with hands and kicked with legs and bet with a stout stick on her head resulting she sustained a bleeding injury. Then A-2/Sadaraboyina Durgamma and A3/Sadaraboyina Swathi arrived there and bet her with hands and kicked with legs and threatened them that they will kill them then LWs 2 and 3 are shifted L.W.1 to Govt. Hospital Nuzvid and got admitted and also having previous grudges.
(b)L.W.9/G.Vijaya Babu, HC received the hospital admission intimation and statement of the LW.1 from Area Hospital, Nuzvid on 017.07.2019 at 20.00 hrs and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.132/2019 under Secs.324,323, 506 r/w 34
IPC of Hanuman Junction Police Station and investigated into.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 5 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
(c)During the course of investigation LW.9 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined the L.Ws 1 to 7.
(d)L.W.8/Dr.Y.S.Babu, Medical officer, Area Hospital, Nuzvid who treated the L.W's 1 and issued Wound certificate. L.W.10 verified the investigation of LW.9 and arrested the accused on 26.07.2019 and sent them for judicial remand. LW. 10 completed the investigation and filing the Charge sheet. Thus the accused are liable for punishment under Secs.324,323,506 r/w 34 IPC. The accused A1 bet the
L.W.1 with log stick on her head, and caused simple injuries the accused A2& A3 bet the complainant with hands in furtherance of common intention. Hence the charge.
3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3. This case is numbered as C.C.No.928/2019.
4.In pursuance of service of summons, accused Nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Court. Thereafter, they were furnished with copies of case documents under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.They were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges has been framed under Sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the trial on behalf of the prosecution, LW.1 was examined as PW.1.
LW.2 was examined as PW.2. LW.6 was examined as PW.3 LW.7 was examined as PW.4. LW.4 was examined as PW.5. LW.9 was examined as PW.6. LW.10 was
C.C.No.928 of 2019 6 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
examined as PW.7 and LW.8 was examined as PW.8. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.
Evidence of LW.s 3 and 5 was given up by the learned A.P.P. The evidence of prosecution is closed.
7.After completion of evidence of prosecution, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. All incriminating material available against them is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied and refuted the correctness of incriminating circumstances, they were confronted.
However, accused Nos.1 to 3 did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in their behalf.
8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
9. Now, the following points would emerge for determination of the case in hand are:
1. Whether accused No.1 bet the defacto-complainant with stout stick on her head and caused bleeding injuries on her head?
2. Whether Accused Nos.1 to 3 bet PW.1 and PW.2 with hands and kicked with legs?
3. Whether Accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened PW.1 and PW.2 with dire consequences?
4. Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT No.1
10.Specific case of the prosecution is that there is speed breaker in front of the house of the LW.1 which was removed by A1. LW.1 talking to herself who removed the speed breaker accused No.1 quarreled with LW.1 and pushed her with hands
C.C.No.928 of 2019 7 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
and bet with hands and kicked with legs and bet with a stout stick on her head resulting she sustained a bleeding injury. Meanwhile LW.2 came there victim/Lw1 informing to the LW2/his son Venkateswara Rao what happened then accused
Nos.2 and 3 arrived there and bet her and threatened them . The accused has pleaded innocence, therefore, burden of proof as in the case of adversarial system rests upon the shoulders of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
11.Now let me see how far the prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused.
(a)The prosecution so as to substantiate its charge levied against the accused has examined defacto complainant as PW.1 she deposed that at about four years back at about 11:00 AM, she came out of her house. There is a cement road opposite to her house and there is a speed breaker on the cement road. She found the speed breaker in damaged condition. While she was talking about the person who is responsible for causing damage to the speed breaker, accused No.1 came there and abused her in filthy language and pushed her due to which she fell down. There is a stick near the scene of offence. He took that stick and beat her on the top of her head towards left side due to which she sustained bleeding injury.
LW.2 came there and questioned the accused about attacking and causing of injuries to her. Then, accused Nos.1 to 3 bet LW.2. LW.s 3 to 7 came there. LW.s 2 and 3 shifted her to Government hospital, Nuzvid in an auto. She went into unconsciousness condition. As she was in that condition, police could not record her statement and therefore they came on the next day and recorded her statement. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 8 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
(b)The main and material version of victim available in her earlier version that the LW.1 and 3 are living with L.W.2 and all are doing agricultural works. The concrete cement road is found in front of their house and a speed breaker is erected on cement road to control speed of motor cycles and other vehicles. On 16.07.2019 morning the LW.1 requested A-1/Sadaraboyina Naga Raju to bring logs from the fields to her house. On her request the A-1 brought the logs to her house by tying to his tractor while bringing the logs hit to the patch of speed breaker and ejected and broken and he moved away. Then the L.W.1 talking herself on broken of path speed breaker in the mean time and accused A-1 arrived there and said that the speed breaker was broken by him and quarreled and bet on chest with hands pushed her with hands and bet with hands and kicked with legs and bet with a stout stick on her head resulting she sustained a bleeding injury. Thereafter her son came while she was explaining what happened Then A-2/Sadaraboyina
Durgamma and A3/Sadaraboyina Swathi arrived there and bet her with hands and kicked with legs and threatened with dire consequences, then LWs 2 and 3 are shifted L.W.1 to Govt. Hospital Nuzvid and she got admitted. L.W.9/G.Vijaya Babu,
HC received the hospital admission intimation and recorded statement of the LW.1 from Area Hospital, Nuzvid. L.W.8/Dr.Y.S.Babu, Medical officer, Area Hospital,
Nuzvid who treated the P.W 1 and issued Wound certificate. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
(c)The testimony of PW.1 is unblemished, worthful and proved to be sterling quality to arrive at a conclusion that she was beaten by the accused Nos.1 bet with stout stick and A1 to A3 bet pw1 pw2 and thretened with dire consequences.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 9 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
12.(a)In support of the case of the prosecution, prosecution has examined
LW.2 as PW.2. During the chief examination, he deposed that on 16.07.2019 at about 11:00AM, PW.2 was in the fields. While he was returning to their home from the fields, he found PW.1 with injuries on her head towards right side. Then, he enquired PW.1 about the reason for receiving of injuries by PW.1. PW.1 stated to
PW.2 that while she was murmuring about the damage of the speed breaker which is situated in front of their house, accused No.1 claimed that he caused damage to the speed breaker and he pushed her and beat her with hands and kicked her with legs and with a stick which is nearby to the scene of offence and bet her on her head and cause bleeding injury. Accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked PW.2 and abused him in filthy language. In the meanwhile, LW.s 4 to 6 came to the scene of offence, called an auto for shifting her to a hospital. They brought PW.1 to Area Hospital,
Nuzvid. The doctor who treated PW.1 referred PW.1 to Government hospital,
Vijayawada for scanning. After having scanning, they again came to Area hospital,
Nuzvid. On 16.07.2019, PW.1 could not give statement to the police as she was in unconscious state. Therefore, she gave statement on 17.07.2019, police examined him and recorded his statement.
(b)PW.2 came to the scene of offence after PW.1 was beaten by A1 with stout stick on her head. PW.2 came to the incident after it took place now this court has to see whether evidence of PW.2 can be used for corroboration as PW.2 was not there at the time of beating PW.1 with stick.
(c)In the situation, this court came across the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court Ramesh Ray Yadav Vs State of Bihar, 2006 (1) SCJ 678 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that evidence of witness who immediately reaches
C.C.No.928 of 2019 10 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
to the place of occurrence and knows about the incident can be used for corroboration under Sec.157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(d)As per above said judgment, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court evidence of PW.2 can be used for corroboration even though he was not there at the time of beating PW.1 with stout stick. Hence, evidence of Pw.2 can be used for corroboration.
13.(a)For corroboration with the evidence of prosecution, LW.6 was examined as PW.3. During the chief examination, he deposed that there are three houses existing between his house and the house of PW.1. About four years back in between 11.00 AM to 11.30 AM, PW.1 was alone. PW.1 and the accused were quarreling with each other. A1 to A3 came to the house of PW.1. A1 bet PW.1 on her head with a stick. PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. PW.2 and LW.3 shifted PW.1 to the hospital in auto. On the second day of the occurrence of the offence, he was suffering with blood pressure. Hence, LW.5 gave statement to the police.
(b)Evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 shows that admittedly there is cement road in front of the house of PW.1 while PW.1 murmuring about damage of speed breaker which was constructed for controlling the speed of motor vehicles then A1 came to the scene of offence stated that he was responsible for damage of speed breaker and A1 bet PW.1 with hands and legs and stout stick PW.1 either in the FIR or
Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement did not state A1 to A3 bet PW.2 so also PW.2 did not state in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C FIR/Ex.P1 is not encyclopedia it need not contain each and every thing and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement can be used for corroboration and contradiction. Counsel for defence did not cross examine the PW.1 and PW.2 that
A1 to A3 did not beat PW.2 in the absence of any such cross examination this court can safely believe the version of PW.1 and PW.2 that A1 to A3 bet PW.2.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 11 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
14.LW.7 was examined as PW.4. During the chief examination, PW.4 deposed that she do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine her and recorded her statement. LW.4 was examined as PW.5. During the chief examination, PW.5 deposed that she do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine her and recorded her statement. PW.s 4 and 5 did not support to the case of the prosecution. They turned hostile.
15.For corroboration with the evidence of prosecution, LW.9 was examined as
PW.6. During the chief examination, he deposed that on 16.07.2019 at 12.40 PM.
He examined PW.1 and found the following injuries:
1. A contusion on head 2x2 cm
2. Bleeding on head.
3. Vomiting History present.
Patient was referred to GGH, Vijayawada in view of suspect skull injury for
CT Brain. As per MLC No.1592, dt.16.07.2019, GGH, Vijayawada and the findings of CT Brain are:
1. Dense calcified Granuloma in right Temporal lobe.
2. Mild Cerebral atrophy.
3. Left Maxillary polyp.
4. Left Maxillary Sinus Area of Soft tissue density seen.
He found no bone injuries as per the X-Ray chest, X-Ray Hip, X-Ray Pelvis.
He was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature and may be due to any blunt object and fresh in nature and issued wound certificate.
C.C.No.928 of 2019 12 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
(a)He was pointed out that he found no bone injuries as per the X-Ray chest, X-Ray Hip, X-Ray Pelvis and the above injuries are simple in nature and may be due to any blunt object and fresh in nature. As such, he issued Ex.P5 wound certificate.
(b)The defence except suggesting PW.8 that he is rendering treatment to the PW.1 on 16.07.2019 at 12.40 PM noticing a contusion of 4x4 cm over right temporal region and noticed 1. A contusion on head 2x2 cm, 2. Bleeding on head and 3. Vomiting History present, the theory of defence is that PW.1 sustained injury somewhere else taken advantage of that foisted false case against the accused and PW.1 is having blood pressure she fell down and unconscious as such she sustained bleeding injuries but the defence bearing a bague theory has failed to narrate neither in which PW.1 sustained injury nor how and where she sustained injury. According to the version of PW.1 accused beat with stick on the top of her head at 11.00 AM. The time of rendering treatment was 12.40 PM. So there is close proximity between the time of the injury and the time of the treatment which gains confidence of the court to arrive at a definite conclusion that the victim ie.,
PW.1 sustained a contusion on head 2x2 cm, Bleeding on head and 3. Vomiting
History present. The defence has failed to explain the contusion of PW.1 other than the way in which the prosecution narrated. Thus, the version and evidence of PW.1 that he sustained contusion and sustain simple injuries have been proved from medical evidence.
16.For corroboration with the evidence of prosecution, LW.9 was examined as
PW.6. During the chief examination, he deposed that on 17.07.2019, while he was on duty at 08.00 PM. He received statement of PW.1 recorded by the Nuzvid Town
P.S. He registered the statement as Cr.No.132/2019 under Secs.324, 323 and 506
C.C.No.928 of 2019 13 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
r/w 34 of IPC. On the same day, he examined PW.s 1 and 2. On the next day, he went to the Ogirala Village, Bapulapadu Mandal there he prepared rough sketch, examined LW.s 3 to 7 and recorded their statements. Next day, SI of police has received the record from him for further investigation.
17.Prosecution has examined Investigating Officer as PW.7. During the chief examination, he deposed that PW.6 has registered FIR, did investigation. He arrested the accused on 26.07.2019. Accused was produced before this Court for remand. Accused was remanded to judicial custody. He received wound certificate from LW.8. Thereafter, he has filed charge sheet.
(a) PW.6 and PW.7 has explained the way of investigation ie., registration of Ex.P1 basing on the report of PW.1 recording statements of witness, drawn rough sketch send for remand of accused.
(b) Learned counsel for the defence submitted that offence took place on 16.07.2019 report was given on 17.06.2019. As such, there is one day delay in giving report to the police. As such, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.On perusal of the FIR, Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, this Court has noticed that offence took place on 16.07.2019 at about 11.00 AM immediately PW.1 was shifted to the
Area Hospital, Nuzvid. Thereafter she was referred to Government Hospital,
Vijayawada for X-ray. After X-ray was done, PW.1 returned to Nuzvid on the next day, ie., 17.07.2019 basing on the hospital intimation, the statement of PW.1 was recorded. Basing on her statement FIR was registeredfor going to vizayawada and returning from vizayawada and getting x ray at vizayawada government hospital it takes time. for everyone life is important hence she was referred to GGH,
Vijayawada on the date of offence she could not give report to the police. Moreover
C.C.No.928 of 2019 14 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
she explained delay in the FIR and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement. When the victim has explained the delay and it is reasonable it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.As such delay of complainant to give report to police is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
(d)Learned counsel for the defence submitted that the speed breaker was laid by the PW.1 illegally there was no board that it is accident area. The panchayat has to take action against PW.1 for illegal construction of speed breaker on the panchayat road. It might be true that speed breaker was constructed by PW.1 illegally without prior permission from the panchayat. If the accused is having any grievance for construction of speed breaker on the cement road they have to report the competent authority. A1 to A3 has no right to take the law into their own hands and bet the PW.1 PW.2 with stick and hands and legs.
(e)Learned counsel for the defence submitted that the Investigation Officer without there being any reason have failed to seize the stick said to have been used in the commission of offence which failure is fatal to the case of prosecution. Failure of the
Investigation Officer to seize the stick at best considered to be defective investigation and that now the law is no longer Res integra that investigation how so defective cannot be ground to discard the evidence of injured witness ie., PW.1 which stands on higher pedestral.
(f)Evidence of PW.1 thus viewed from any angle inspires the confidence of court.
The prosecution by examining the PW.1 coupled with ocular evidence read in conjunction with medical evidence has successfully established beyond the reasonable doubt that A1 bet
PW.1 with hands and legs and stout stick on her head A2 and A3 bet PW.2 with hands and legs. The charges has been framed against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sec.324 and 506 of IPC. A1 only found guilty for the offence under Sec.324 A1 to A3 found guilty for the offence under Sec.323 and 506 of IPC. charge has been framed for the major offence under
C.C.No.928 of 2019 15 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
Sec.324 of IPC against A1 to A3 if minor offence is proved against the accused accused can be convicted for minor offence, according to the Sec.222 of Cr.P.C. in the case in hand minor offence section 323 is proved against A2 to A3 they can be convicted under that section.
18.In view of the discussion supra, the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the 1st accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 324, A1 to A3 found guilty for the offence under section 323 and 506 of IPC As such, they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
Hearing on the quantam of sentence:
19.Accused Nos.1 to 3 are questioned about the sentence as required under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. they stated that they are married, they are having small children and aged parents there entire family is depending upon their income. Therefore, severe punishment shall be avoided.
20.Here, in the case in hand, accused No.1 found to have caused simple injury to the
LW.1with stout stick therefore in my considered opinion imposing SIX (6) MONTHS sentence for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, and imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- to each accused ie., A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and imposing fine of
Rs.1,000/- to each accused ie., A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 506 of IPC will better serve the needs of justice.
21.In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under Sections 324 of IPC, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence under section 323 and 506 of
IPC they are convicted under section 248(2) of crpc A1 is sentenced to undergo
C.C.No.928 of 2019 16 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
simple imprisonment for Six (6) MONTHS for the offence under section 324 of
IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., each accused sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, if the accused Nos.1 to 3 fails to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The accused Nos.1 to
A3 i.e.,each accused are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under
Section 506 of IPC, if accused Nos.1 to 3 fails to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Period of imprisonment already underwent is to be set off, Punishments under Sections 324,323 and 506 of IPC shall run concurrently.
22.The accused was appraised about his right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence of this Court.
23.A copy of the judgment is furnished to the accused at free of cost as provided under
Sub-Section (1) of Sec.363 of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2025.
Sd.M.Siva Parvathi/- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution For Defence
PW.1 : S.VenkateswarammaNone
PW.2 : S.Venkateswara Rao
PW.3 : D.Lakshmi
PW.4 : K.Mariyamma
C.C.No.928 of 2019 17 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Nuzvid
PW.5 : T.Vara Lakshmi
PW.6 : G.Vijaya Babu, Head Constable
PW.7 : V.Satish, SI of police
PW.8 : Dr Y.Sudhakar Babu, Private Practitioner, Vijayawada
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution For Defence
Ex.P.1: Statement bearing thumb impression of PW.1
Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4Nil
Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5
Ex.P.4: Original FIR
Ex.P.5: Original wound certificate.
Sd.M.Siva Parvathi/- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.
// True copy //
II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid