1 SC No. 32 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PILER.
Present : Sri M. SRINIVASULU NAIK.,
Assistant Sessions Judge, Piler.
Friday, this the 08th day of September, 2023
SESSIONS CASE NO. 32 OF 2021
P.R.C. No.23 /2020 of Addl. Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Piler, in Cr.No.54/2020 of K.V.Palli police Station.
Name of the Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, K.V.Palli Police Station.
Name of the accused: P. Srinivasulu
The prosecution was conducted by Sri. Md. Rafi Ansari, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri. M.Madhusudhana Reddy Advocate for Accused defended the case on behalf of the accused. Date of offence : 642020
Nature of offence: Under Sec. 341, 324, 307 IPC
Date of Commencement Of trial: 08.06.2022
Date of closure of trial : 9082023
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty of the above said charge.
Finding of the Court : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 341 and 324 of IPC and he is convicted u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and above discussion,
the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year for the
offence u/s 324 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ ( Rupees ten thousands only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One month. Out of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/ Rs.8000/ shall be given to the PW1 towards Compensation as contemplated u/s 357 Cr.P.C.
The accused further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for One month offence u/s 341 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/ ( Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One week. The sentences in both run concurrently.
The remand period of the accused already undergone by him 23 days ie., from 15.4.2020 to 852020 shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C
MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. MO6 motorcycle returned to accused after lapse of appeal time is made absolute.
2 SC No. 32 of 2021
Description of accused:
Pasupuleti Srinivasulu, aged 33 years, s/o Venkatarathnam, Bandlavaddipalli h/o K.V.Palli village and mandal. Chittoor district.
J U D G M E N T
The State represented by the Inspector of police. K.V.Palli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 54/2020 of K.V Palli PS in
PRC No. 23/2020 on the file of JFCM Piler for the offence u/s 341, 324 307 of IPC against accusedSrinivasulu.
2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 6.4.2020 at about 9.35 AM at Bandavaddipalli bus stop on
K.V.Palli – Piler main road H/o K.V.Palli village and mandal and on the same day the accused was wrongfully restrained the complainant
Pasupuleti Viswanath aged about 39 years with the help of his motorcycle while PW1 along with his villager Ramanjulu proceeding towards K.V.Palli in his motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 BG 8486 loudly questioned to him as “Nuvvuendira naapai piryadu chesedi ninnuikkade champuthanu” attacked him with knife which is kept in his motorcycle and hacked him with knife on his left side back, left hand resulting he sustained bleeding injuries due to fear he was ran away from his village side, but the accused was followed him and hacked with knife on his left side neck and head resulting he sustained bleeding injuries. One
Ramanujulu of his villager was tried to rescue his from the hands of the accused but he was pushed and beat him resulting he sustained scrub injury on his left cheek, on noticing the same his villagers were came and rescued them from the hands of the accused and shifted them to Govt.
hospital, Piler through a private vehicle for treatment. The offence was 3 SC No. 32 of 2021 occurred due to previous grudges and money disbursement which was sanctioned by the government.
3.Basing on the statement of PW1 a case was registered in Cr. NO.
54./2020 u/s 341, 324, 307 of IPC by PW11 K.Ram Mohan and took up investigation.
4.During the course of investigation on 6.4.20202 he examined Pws 1 to 3, PW4 to 6 and 10 and LW4K.Ramakrishna, LW7A.Anand and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch on the same day and he seized bloodstained clothes of PW1 under the cover of police proceedings
dt. 6.4.2020 at about 2.30 PM.
5.On 15.4.2020 at about 12 noon he arrested the accused at
K.V.Palli bus stop in the presence of PW7 and PW8 and recorded confessional statement of accused and also seized crime weapon, motorcycle pulsor bearing No. AP 03 AV 8723 from the possession of the accused. After completion of all formalities he produced the accused
before the JFCM Piler for judicial remand.
6.During the course of further investigation on 2.6.2020 the PW11 was received the wound certificate of PW1 from the PW9
Dr.P.Chandrasekar who rendered treatment to the PW1 issued wound certificate and opined that PW1 received simple injuries and afresh nature might be caused with sharp edged weapon.
7.Further as per investigation the evidence of witnesses PW11 observed that the accused is working as Village Volunteer of 4 SC No. 32 of 2021
Bandavaddipalli, K.V.Palli mandal he was distributed an amount of
Rs.1000/ to each and every ration card holder on his respective area, which was sanctioned by the government to the villagers while distributing Rs.1000/ each house by the accused Srinivasulu at abouty 2.30 pm on 5.4.2020 when he went near the house of PW1 Viswanath and issued an amount of Rs.1000/ to him thereafter the PW1 was asked the accused to issue another Rs.1000/ to his brother’s wife ration card due to that the accused replied that she is in Kuwait and hence amount is not sanctioned to her. Due to that PW1 again questioned the accused that her children are living with him therefore he asked to issue the said amount. Further the accused Srinivasulu refused to issue the said amount then the PW1 intimated to the accused that he will reported the same to the MRO and MDO tomorrow, for which the accused threatened the PW1 stating that if reported to MRO and MDO or to anybody he will kill PW1 and went away from that place.
8.On the next day on 6.4.2020 morning at about 9.30 AM while PW1 proceeded to K.V.Palli in his motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 BG 8486 along with PW2 meanwhile the accused Srinivasulu waiting at his village bus stop wrongfully restrained by PW1 and 2 by keeping his motorcycle and hacked the PW1 with knife due to fear the PW1 ran away towards the village side but the accused followed PW1 and hacked with knife,
PW2 was tried to rescue PW1 from the hands of accused but he was pushed and beat him resulting PW1 was sustained bleeding injuries over his left back, left hand, back side of his head, PW2 was sustained scrub injuries over his left cheek noticing the same PW4, 5 and LW4 5 SC No. 32 of 2021
K.Ramakrishna and LW7 A.Anand rushed to the spot and on seeing them the accused ran away from that place from his motorcycle AP 03
AV 8723, later the said witnesses were shifted the injured persons PW1 and PW2 in an auto to the government hospital Piler for treatment. The offence was occurred due to money dispute and previous grudges, hence the charge.
9. The committal court took the cognizance for the offence u/s 341, 324 and 307 of IPC against the accused vide PRC No. 23/2020, therefore the case copies furnished as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
10.Upon hearing the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the accused and on consideration this court framed charge u/s 341, 324 307
IPC against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11.To substantiate its case of prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MO 1 to MO6. The learned APP given up
LW4 Ramakrishna, LW7 A.Anand respectively.
12.On being closed the prosecution side evidence, as there is incriminating evidence from the testimonies of Pws 1 to 11, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
13.Heard the learned APP as well as the learned counsel for accused.
14.Now the point for determination is 6 SC No. 32 of 2021
Whether the prosecution proves the case against the accused for the offence u/s 341, 324 and 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
15.Out of the 13 witnesses, cited by the investigating officer in the memo of evidence annexed to the charge sheet, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 11 and the remaining witnesses were given up by the learned APP.
16.The learned APP submitted arguments stating that the prosecution with the oral testimony of Pws 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 11, and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and MOs 1 to 6 proved that the accused with an intention and knowledge tried to kill the PW1 as a result the PW1 received bleeding injuries on his backside of the neck and shoulder, thereby the PW4, 5, 8 and 10 shifted the injured to the government hospital, Piler for treatment. The series of acts leads that the accused to commit the offence. Minor discrepancies in the oral testimonies of PWs 4,5 and 10 cannot be viewed in the magnified glasses and prayed this court to convict the accused.
17.In contra the learned defence counsel for the accused Sri
M.Madhusudhana Reddy argued that PWs 4, 5, 8 and 10 are hearsay witneses, PW2, 6, and 7 did not supported the case of prosecution and material aspects and that the learned APP marked their statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C as such their evidence has not probative value. PW2 is the eye witness to the occurrence of the offence. As per Ex.P1 the accused hacked the PW1 with a knife , whereas PW2 eye witness turned hostile, he did not supported the case of prosecution, the allegations is that the 7 SC No. 32 of 2021 accused hacked with knife and caused injuries to PW1 on his backside and also backside of neck likewise on the hands of the PW1 and as such there is discrepancies in the oral testimony of PW9 and material objects.
Further argued that as per the evidence of PW1 in his statement CHC
Piler stated that at the time of alleged incident he was traveling along with PW2 on his motorcycle to proceed to MRO office and MDO office.
But the PW1 in his chief examination did not stated about the presence of PW2 along with him at the time of incident. Further in the cross examination he stated that “He has not stated before the police that himself and Ranjaneyulu PW2 was going to the MRO office”. Further according to the PW1 he sustained 1) bleeding injury on left side of his back, 2) bleeding injury on the left side of the neck. 3) bleeding injury on the back side of the neck. But surprisingly in the wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer PW9 there were only two injuries mentioned and stated that PW1 received only 2 bleeding injuries, that too both are simple in nature.
18.As per the evidence of PW11 Investigating officer in his evidence stated that he has received hospital intimation through phone whereas
Ex.P7 shows that intimation was given to Piler police in writing. PW11 has not signed any reason why he has seized the MOs 2 to 5 under the police proceedings, even though the general public is available in the hospital premises, PW11 for the best reason known to him has not sent
MOs 1 to 5 for forensic examination and the prosecution failed to establish the bloodstained and MOs belongs to PW1 or not. Further Ex
P10 rough sketch prepared by the PW11 is missing anything such 8 SC No. 32 of 2021 banyan tree, curved road etc., This fact clearly shows that PW1 prepared
Ex.P1 at his station, further the alleged confession and seizure mahazarnama has not supported the case of prosecution, thereby the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.
19.Before the appreciating and analyzing the evidence of prosecution witness, their evidence can be stated as under for better appreciation of the case facts.
20.PW1 Viswanatha raju deposed before this court that during the
Corona period Rs.1000/ were being distributed to each ration card holder by the volunteers, for which he has asked the accused to gave
Rs.1000/ for the ration card of his younger sister in law since there is a ration card on her name and her children are residing along with PW1.
She is staying at Kuwait for that the accused stated that she is not eligible for the said Rs.1000/ and do whatever want by PW1. For that the PW1 informed to the accused that he will gave complaint against his higher officials, then the accused raised voice and neighbors came and advised both to act according to rule. Then the accused left the house of
PW1. On the next day at morning 9 AM or 9.30 AM while he was going to MRO office when he reached at Bandlavaddipalli bus stop on his motorcycle the accused was also went there and questioned PW1 where
PW1 was going and obstructed his vehicle then he get down from his motorcycle and stated that he was going to inform to the MRO for which the accused obstructed PW1 and taken a knife from the motorcycle of the 9 SC No. 32 of 2021 accused and stabbed on left side of PW1 then PW1 was ran away again caughthold the PW1 and stabbed on PW1 on the left side of neck, meanwhile PW2 P. Ramanjulu came and rescued PW1 by that time the accused pushed him away, then PW1 raised cries due to which surrounding people LW4 Ramakrishna , PW4, PW5 and LW7 and
Reddeppa came there and shifted the injured to the government hospital for treatment. Ex.P1 is statement.
21.In the cross examination PW1 deposed that it is true there was as case filed against him u/s 307 of IPC, it is true that he did stone cutting work, LW8 Reddeppa used to work under him. LW5 PW4, LW7 A.Anand are his relatives, PW9 is his maternal uncle. The Government does not gave one person money to another person, he never stated before the police that himself and Ranjuneyulu were going to the MRO office that was marked as “D” series. The distance between the bus stop and
Banyan tree is about 150 meters. To go to Banyan tree they have to cross the road and have to get down from the slope. It is a big banyan tree. He has stated before the police that when he raised cries the people near of the said tree came and also stated before the police that one Reddeppa
PW10 shifted PW1 to the government hospital, the distance between the scene of offence and police station is about 1.50 kms. The relatives of
PW1 made a phone call to the police K.V.Palli and that they came to government hospital and recorded the statements of PW1, when the police visited the hospital, by the time the Pw1 was taking treatment. He cannot say the name of polikce constable who recorded the statement.
After recording his statement PW1 was referred in to Tirupati SVRRGG 10 SC No. 32 of 2021 hospital, Tirupati there he stayed one week. Except this nothing was elicited to disprove and discard the evidence of PW1.
22.PW2 T.Ramanjulu eye witness turned hostile.
23.PW3S.Sankaramma wife of PW1 she deposed before this court on 6.4.2020 at about 9.30 AM the PW1 was informed her while he was going to MRO office at about 9.30 AM the accused stabbed PW1 on hearing cries LW4Ramakrishna, PW4, PW5 and LW7 A.Anand were present near banyan tree they went to the scene of offence and found the accused and
PW1 received the injuries and shifted PW1 to the hospital, Piler the same was informed by the LW4 Ramakrishna through phone at about 9.45 AM to PW3.
24.In the cross examination she deposed that she has not witnessed while the accused stabbing PW1 and she has stated before the police that her husband informed her that he was going to MRO office.
25.PW4A.Sravan kumar Sales man he deposed before this court that on 6.4.2020 while he along with LW4 Ramakrishna, PW5 and LW7
A.Anand were sitting near the banyan tree and they heard cries of PW1 and went to the road and they noticed that PW1 with injuries they shifted to government hospital, Piler, when they questioned the PW1 about the injuries he stated that one Srinivasulu stabbed him in connection with disbursement of Rs.1000/ . LW4 informed the same to
PW3.
11 SC No. 32 of 2021
26.In the cross examination PW4 deposed that his usual office hours is 10 to 5 on the date of incident he was an audit work only 4 persons were sitting under the banyan tree, usually there are so many people present in the bus stop for boarding bus. Further he deposed that he do not know what happened at bus stop to PW1. He has not witnessed any offence and he has not stated before the police but when he questioned
PW1 about receipt of injuries. The police reached to the hospital within half an hour while the treatment of PW1 was going on.
27.PW5, LW7 A.Anand were present near the PW1 when the police were recording statement of PW1.
28PW5A.Ashok , deposed before this court on 6.4.2020 while he along with PW4 , LW4, PW5 and LW7 A.Anand were sitting near the banyan tree and they heard cries and went to the road then they noticed that PW1 with injuries at that time the accused Srinivasulu went away on his motorcycle, thereafter they shifted PW1 to the government hospital, then PW5 and other witnesses questioned to PW1 about the injuries then the PW1 stated that one Srinivasulu stabbed him in connection with the wife of PW1 ie., PW3 not distributing the anganwadi protein food and Srinivas has given a complaint to MRO and as accused did not give disbursement amount of Rs.1000/ for ration card of PW1’s sister in law .
29.In the cross examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the dispute with regard to non distribution of protein 12 SC No. 32 of 2021 food and distribution of Rs.1000/ in connection with the ration card of sister in law of PW1 and he has not witnessed the Pw1 and received injuries, by the time they reached the scene of offence PW1, PW2 and accused were present. H e has stated before the police that PW1 informed him that the accused stabbed him he cannot tell the auto number and they shifted PW1 to the government hospital, for treatment and there are crime cases filed against PW1,t he police reached the hospital within 20 minutes. The treatment was completed to PW1 when the police was reached to the hospital, the doctors have also informed about the condition of PW1.
30PW6 and PW7 Chandraiah and Mal Reddy respectively are turned hostile.
31.PW8K.Seshagiri kumar deposed before the court that he is working as Panchayat secretary at K.V.Palli from November, 2019 to till date, he received phone call from the police that Srinivasulu Grama volunteer arrested by the police and called him to Vagalla in the presence of mediators and police drafted arrest mahazarnama and that he signed on it.
32.PW9Dr Chandrasekar he is working as CAS Area hospital, Piler from 1961998 to 832022. On 16.4.2020 about 10.48 am he examined one male by name Viswanatha raju who came directly to the hospital and found the following injuries. 1. Incised injury over left back scalp 6 x 2x1 cm bleeding present. 2. Incised injury over left back of chest 3x 2 cms.
13 SC No. 32 of 2021
MLC Xray report.
Xray No.8708 dt. 6.4.2020 by VSK Narendra, Asst. Professor, Radiology, SVRRGH, Tirupati. ]
Xray chest AP shows no bony injury,
Xray skull AP and Oblique shows no bony injury
Xray neck AP and lateral shows no bony injury and he opined that the above two injuries are simple and fresh in nature and might be caused by sharp edged weapon, Ex.P6 is wound certificate.
In his cross examination he deposed that there is posiblity of sustained the injuries when a person falls on sharp edged objects like stone or tin sheet.
33.PW10Poojari Reddeppa deposed that about 3 years back at the first instance there was a galata in between the accused and PW1 at after noon the PW1 asked the accused why Jananna CM ashra not sanctioned to the children of his brother, there was a exchange of words in between them, meanwhile PW10 and PW6 Chandraiah went there and pacified galata in between Pw1 and accused, on the next day himself and
Amarnadh went for stone work at about 9.30 am they received phone call from PW2 stating that the accused stabbed with knife to PW1, meanwhile reached to the road by the time the Pw1 was shifted to the hospital, Piler thereafter as per information given by the wife of Pw1 shifted to Tirupati
SVRR hospital, Police examined him and recorded his statement.
In the cross examination he deposed that he studied upto 10th class, he can read and write Telugu, he never worked from the Pw1 for 14 SC No. 32 of 2021 stone work. Again witness adds that he worked only 4 days from the
PW1. On the date of incident police never examined him.
34.PW11 K. Ram Mohan, SI of police deposed before this court. On 6.4.2020 at about 10.30 am while he was present in the police station he received hospital, intimation from the Government hospital, Piler, immediately he left the police station and reached government hospital and secured the persons and recorded the statement of PW1 and in turn at about 12.30 basing on the statement of PW1 he registered a case in
Cr. No. 54/2020 for the offence u/s 341, 324 and 307 IPC and on the same day he visited the government hospital Piler and he secured the presence of Pw1 to 3 and recorded their statements, he also seized bloodstained clothes from the PW1 under cover of police proceedings.
Later he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW4
K.Ramakrishna , Pw4 and PW5, LW7 A.Anand and recorded their statements and also prepared scene of offence and rough sketch later visited the house of Pw1 and secured the neighbors of Pw1 ie., PW6 and
PW10 and recorded their statements. On 15.4.2020 while he was present in the police station on reliable information himself and his staff visited the Vagalla bus stop and found that the accused and seeing the police he tried to escape from the place, himself and his staff caughthold of him and interrogated the accused in the presence of Pw7 and PW8 and recorded confessional statement under Ex.P11. During the confessional statement the accused revealed that his name P.Srinivasulu son of
Venkatarathnam resident of Bandlavadipalli,K.V.Palli mandal and also committed offence u/s 341, 324 and 307 IPC. Further he seized the 15 SC No. 32 of 2021 motorcycle bearing No. AP 03 AV 8723 on verification of bike found the knife ie., MO1 later he seized motorcycle . After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.
In the cross examination he stated that PW1 as per Ex.P1, he never obtained wound certificate of Pw2. The PW2 after taking first aid from the government hospital and he left from there. As per FIR and his investigation the Pw2 received only scratches. It is true that the government hospital gave intimation to the police that Pw2 received only scratches. He never received any information from the government hospital about the referral of Pw1 to the SVRR GH hospital. He never obtained signatures of Pw1 to 3 on Ex.P9. On the date of Ex.P10 is working day. Witness adds that due to Covid no office and schools are working. Ex.P10 place is very busy place. He has not shown banyan tree and curve in Ex.P10. It is true that there are several trees either side of Bandavaddipalli road, he has not obtained signature of attesting witness in every page of Ex.P9. He never sent MO1 to 6 and bloodstained earth to the forensic lab.
P O I N T :
35.It is the case of prosecution that the accused is working as
Volunteer of Bandavaddipalli village, K.V.Palli mandal while he was distributing the amount of Rs.1000/ to each and every ration card holders in his respective areas on 5.4.2020 and after distribution of said
Rs.1000/ to PW1, the PW1 questioned to the accused why the said
Rs.1000/ not sanctioned to his sister in law who is residing at Kuwait 16 SC No. 32 of 2021 for that an altercation was took place in between them and on the next day the PW1 while he was going to MRO and MDO offices to gave complaint against the accused at about 9.30 am when he reached near
K.V.Palli bus stop ;the accused confined PW1 and hacked with knife caused bleeding simple injuries. To prove the said case of prosecution, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 (Viswanatha raju) injured deposed
before this court that during the Corona period Rs.1000/ were being
distributed to each ration card holder by the volunteers, for which he has asked the accused to gave Rs.1000/ for the ration card of his younger sister in law since there is a ration card on her name and her children are residing along with PW1. She is staying at Kuwait for that the accused stated that she is not eligible for the said Rs.1000/ and do whatever want by PW1. For that the PW1 informed to the accused that he will gave complaint against his higher officials, then the accused raised voice and neighbors came and advised both to act according to rule. Then the accused left the house of PW1. On the next day at morning 9 AM or 9.30 AM while he was going to MRO office when he reached at Bandlavaddipalli bus stop on his motorcycle the accused was also went there and questioned PW1 where PW1 was going and obstructed his vehicle then he get down from his motorcycle and stated that he was going to inform to the MRO for which the accused obstructed
PW1 and taken a knife from the motorcycle of the accused and stabbed on left side of PW1 then PW1 was ran away again caughthold the PW1 and stabbed on PW1 on the left side of neck, meanwhile PW2 P.
Ramanjulu came and rescued PW1 by that time the accused pushed him 17 SC No. 32 of 2021 away, then PW1 raised cries due to which surrounding people LW4
Ramakrishna , PW4, PW5 and LW7 and Reddeppa came there and shifted the injured to the government hospital for treatment.
In the cross examination nothing was elicited to disprove and discard the evidence of PW1. Except suggestions to that effect that PW1 belongs to TDP party and accused belongs to YSRC party, further the wife of PW1 ie.,PW2 working as Anganwadi teacher and not distributed the articles to the people when the accused questioned for the said distribution keeping in mind the same the PW1 foisted this false case.
36. At this stage the learned counsel for the accused submitted his arguments that except the evidence of PW1 no other witnesses are supported and even PW2 who is an eye witness present at the scene of offence place turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and other witnesses ie., PW2 to PW5 and 10 are relatives of the PW1 and their evidence cannot be looked into since they are hearsay witnesses.
Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.
37.On perusal of the evidence of PW3 C.Sankaramma who is the wife of PW1 as per her evidence she has not witnessed the accused while stabbing with knife to PW1 and she received information through her husband ie., PW1, so as per her evidence PW3 evidence is hearsay evidence, she learnet about the incident through the PW1.
38.Coming to the evidence of PW4, he deposed that on 6.4.2020 he along with LW4 Ramakrishna, PW5 Ashok, LW7 A.Anand after hearing 18 SC No. 32 of 2021 the cries of PW1 immediately they reached the scene of offence place and noticed receipt of the injuries by PW1 and immediately they shifted PW1 to the Government hospital, Piler. Likewise PW5 Ashok deposed that he along with along with PW4, LW4 Ramakrishna and LW7 A.Anand after hearing the cries they proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed that
PW1 received bleeding injuries, at that time the accused Srinivasulu went away on his motorcycle then they shifted PW1 to the government hospital, Piler.
39.Admittedly the learned APP given up the evidence of LW4
Ramakrishna and LW7 A.Anand and remaining witnesses ie., PW4, PW5 are supported the cases of prosecution about the receipt of injuries by
PW1 through the accused.
40.PW6 A.Chandraiah as per prosecution he is an eye witness and corroborating and other witnesses. Whereas before this court he turned hostile and in the cross examination the learned APP noting was elicited and his 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P2.
41.As seen from the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5 this court come to conclusion that the incident was happened on 6.4.2020 at about 9.30
AM, in the said incident the accused wrongfully confined the PW1 and caused bleeding injuries through knife. Thereafter hearing cries when the PW4 and PW5 heard and immediately they reached the scene of offence they noticed about the receipt of injuries by PW1 and immediately they shifted him to the government hospital. Further they 19 SC No. 32 of 2021 noticed that the accused was also present and he ran away from the scene of offence on the motorcycle.
42.The learned counsel for the accused argued that except the evidence of PW1 who is interested witnesses and other witnesses ie., PWs 2 to 6 not supported the case of prosecution, since no incident was happened and the alleged incident created in order to harass the accused as the accused acted as per law since government was not sanctioned
Rs.1000/ to the sister in law of PW1 as his sister in law was residing at
Kuwait and when the accused refused PW1 made galata with the accused. Keeping in mind the alleged incident was created and PW1 was received injuries in some other manner.
43. This court come across one reported decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Kanju @ Balachandran Vs. State of
Tamilnadu on 16.1.2008 reported in Crl.Appeal No. 112/18 para No. 9 Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with approval in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. In the present case also the evidence of PW1, 4 and 5 are cogent and trustworthy and their evidence can be believable.
20 SC No. 32 of 2021
44.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW8 who is the witness for the arrest seizure mahazarnama in the chief examination stated that he received phone call from the police about the arrest of the accused and immediately the mediators report was drafted and that PW8 went there and signed on it.
Likewise PW7 also a witness of confession arrest seizure mahazarnama of the accused.
45.On perusal of the evidence of PW7 and PW8, PW7 Mal Reddy retired VRO he turned hostile and he never supported the case of prosecution. PW8 K.Seshagiri kumar deposed that he received phone call from the police about the arrest of accused Srinivasulu thereafter he went to the police station there the police were drafted the mediators panchayatnama and then he signed on it.
46.As per the evidence of PW8 he acted only panchayatdar on the date of arrest of the accused. Section 58(A) of Cr.P.C Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest etc., to nominated persons. The police while they were arrested the accused they followed the procedure and secured the presence of PW7 and PW8 and prepared arrest confession and seizure mahazarnama through
PW8 they proved the arrest and seizure mahazarnama.
47.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that as per the evidence of PW10 when he reached scene of offence by that time PW1 was already shifted from Piler to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupati, whereas in the cross examination he categorically stated that he has no knowledge about the case and he has visited the PW1 at Government hospital, Piler. On perusal of the evidence of 21 SC No. 32 of 2021
PW10 he narrated the dispute between PW1 and accused that about 3 years back at the first instance there was a galata in between the accused and PW1. Thereafter PW1 asked the accused why Jagananna CM ashra not sanctioned to the children of his sister in law. At that time there were exchange of words in between them. Meanwhile he himself and PW6 pacified the galata. On the next day when the PW10 was went for stone work at about 9.30 AM he received phone call from PW2 stating that the accused stabbed with knife to PW1. When he reached the scene of offence by that time already PW1 was shifted to Government hospital, Piler. It shows that the evidence of PW1 is hearsay evidence but he knows the galata in between the accused and PW1 prior to the incident.
48.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW11 Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that he had received hospital intimation through phone whereas Ex.P7 shows that the intimation was given to Police in writing. PW11 was not assigned any reason why he has seized MOs 2 to 5 for the police proceedings. Even though the general public available in the hospital premises. PW11 for the best reason known to him but not sent by MO1 to MO5 for forensic examination and that the prosecution failed to establish whether the bloodstained MOs belongs to the PW1 or not, it is fatal to the case of prosecution.
49.In this regard the learned counsel for the accused relied in a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.Yadav and others vs.
State of Bihar reported in 2011(5) SCC 324 para No.32 (L)The blood stained clothes, blood stained earth of the place of occurrence were not sent to forensic laboratory for chemical examination.
It is fatal to the case of prosecution.
50.On perusal of the above decision relating to the offence u/s 302 IPC but not relating to the offence u/s 307, 341, 324 IPC. Therefore the facts of the above decision and facts of the present case are not similar and the above decision not applicable to this case facts.
51..Likewise the learned counsel relied another decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Crl. Appeal No. 2012(2) SCC
22 SC No. 32 of 2021
(criminal) 533 between Govinda raju @ Govinda vs. State rep.by
Sriramapuram PS and another in para No.45 held that
45. The doctor who had performed the post mortem and prepared the Post Mortem Report, not examined. The Head Constable who had come to the help the investigating officer for taking the deceased to the hospital and was present immediately after the occurrence was also not examined.
The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report, was placed on record, however, no person from the FSL, Bangalore or Calcutta was examined in this case, All, witnesses to recovery of weapon of offence turned hostile. The weapon of offence (chaku) was blood stained. However, the prosecution has taken no steps to prove whether it was human blood, and if so, then was it of the same blood group as the deceased or not. The said case also pertaining to the offence u/s 302 IPC but not the offence U/s 307, 341 , 324 IPC. Therefore both the two decisions relied by the accused are not applicable to the present case facts.
52.As discussed this court in above paras. It is not necessary to send MO1 to the forensic laboratory for chemical examination. Further it is relevant to discuss about the evidence of PW9 who is doctor namely Dr.P.Chandrasekar deposed before this court that on 16..4.2020 about 10.48 am PW1Viswanatha raju came directly to the hospital and that PW9 found the following injuries
1. Incised injury over left back scalp 6 x 2x1 cm bleeding present.
2. Incised injury over left back of chest 3x 2 cms.
53.Both are simple in nature and caused with sharp edged weapon. So the evidence of Pw1, PW4 and PW5 when closely observed by this court that on 6.4.2020 the alleged incident was happened in that incident the accused caused said two injuries with knife to the PW1.
54.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there are no previous enmities in between the accused family and PW1 family, as such the accused is not having any intention to cause death to the PW1. When this court observed all the prosecution case, this court finds that except small incident in between the accused and 23 SC No. 32 of 2021
PW1 there are no previous enmity in between them. At this stage it is relevant to discuss about the section 307 IPC.
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life
The scope applicability of section 307 IPC
1. The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307 IPC , is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend on the facts of the case.
2. The important thing to be born in mind and determining the question whether an offence u/s 307 IPC is made is the intention and not the injury, even if simple or minor.
55.As seen from the entire prosecution case due to some misunderstandings in between the accused and PW1 the alleged incident was happened and without any intention the accused committed this offence. Thereby the prosecution has not proved the offence u/s 307 IPC against the accused. Whereas PW1 evidence when clubbed with the evidence of PW4, PW5 and Investigating officer PW11 and doctor evidence PW10 clearly shows that on the date of alleged incident the accused caused bleeding injuries with knife to the PW1. Thereby the PW1 immediately after receipt of the injuries went to the government hospital and taking treatment and the prosecution proved the offence u/s 341, 324 IPC.
24 SC No. 32 of 2021
56.Similarly the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly and categorically established the specific overt acts made against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In such a case I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution is able to established and proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 341 324 IPC. Accordingly this point is answered.
57. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence under
Section 324 and 341 of IPC and accused is Convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, dated this the 8th day of September.
2023
Assistant Sessions Judge, Piler.
58. Hearing of the accused on Sentence:
Accused is questioned on quantum of the sentence, for which he submitted that he is having 3 months old baby and one year boy and also having old aged parents and they are depending upon him and he further submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case and he never committed this offence.
59.Heard the learned APP and also defence counsel.
25 SC No. 32 of 2021 60..After hearing the submissions of the accused on quantum of
Sentence, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case on hand, I am of the considered view that lenient view can be taken on accused. It is not a fit case to revoke the benevolent provision under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act U/s 360 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and above discussion,the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for One year for the offence u/s 324 IPC and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/ ( Rupees ten thousands only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One month.
Out of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/ Rs.8000/ shall be given to
the PW1 towards Compensation as contemplated u/s 357 Cr.P.C.
The accused further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for One month offence u/s 341 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/
( Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One week. The sentences in both run concurrently.
The remand period of the accused already undergone by him 23 days ie., from 15.4.2020 to 852020 shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C
MO1 to MO5 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. MO6 motorcycle returned to accused after lapse of appeal time is made absolute.
The accused is informed his right to prefer appeal and also to approach District Legal Services Authority Chittoor for Legal Aid if he has no means to engage counsel.
26 SC No. 32 of 2021
The copy of judgment is to be sent to the District Legal Services
Authority, Chittoor.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of September, 2023.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
PILER.
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for: Prosecution: Defence: ;Pw1: Viswanatha Raju None Pw2: Ramanjulu PW3: C. Sankaramma PW4: A.Sravan kumar PW5: A.Ashok PW6; Chandraiah PW7: Mal Reddy PW8: K. Seshagiri kumar PW9: Dr. P.Chandrasekar PW10: Pujari Reddeppa PW11: K. Ram Mohan
Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.D1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P4: Signatures in the report Ex.P5: Report Ex.P6: Wound Certificate Ex.P7: Hospital receipt Ex.P8: FIR in Cr. No. 54/2020 Ex.P9: police proceedings Ex.P10 rough sketch Ex.P11: concession statement of accused
Material Objects marked. MO1 Knife MO2 white colour full shirt MO3 Blue colour lungi MO4 Towal MO5 banian MO6 motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 BG 8486
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
PILER.
27 SC No. 32 of 2021