IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KAKINADA
PRESENT:Smt M.V.N.PADMAJA
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA
FAC/PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA
Monday, this the 19th day of February, 2024
SESSIONS CASE No.304/2023
(PRC.No.45/2022 of Spl.Mobible J.F.C. Magistrate’s Court, Kakinada in Cr.No.361/2020 of SHO, Sarpavaram Police Station)
Complainant: Accused:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police,A1. Gullapalli Durga Rao @ Durga Rao, Sarpavaram Police Station. Aged25years,C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A2. Konda Venkatesh, S/o Annavaram, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3- 17A-54C, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada A3. Gullapalli Ramana, W/o Durga Rao @ Durgalu, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A4. Konda Manikanta, W/o Venkatesh @ Venkanna, Aged 28 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3-17A-54C, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada
Prosecution conducted by: Accused defended by:
Sri Radha Krishnam Raju, Sri B.Ramalinga Sarma, Learned Counsel
Additional Public Prosecutor, for Accused Nos.1 to 4
Kakinada
Nature of Offence:Under Section 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty
Name of the police station and Sarpavaram P.S., Cr.No.361/2020 crime Number :
Finding of the Judge:Found guilty
In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty Sentence of order: for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) of 2 the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In case of default, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.9,000/- shall pay to P.W.7 as compensation after lapse of appeal time.
Further, A2 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and they convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, and they sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three thousand each only). In case of default,
A2 to A4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.6,000/- shall pay to P.W.2 as compensation after lapse of appeal time.
The remand period undergone by A1 and A2 in this case from 31-10-2020 to 19-11-2020 shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. A3 and A4 were released on anticipatory bail and not in judicial custody during the earlier phases of the case, there is no period of set off to
A3 and A4.
A1 to A4 are informed of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Court 3 and they are also informed about their right to get free legal aid from the Hon’ble
Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority,
Kakinada. A1 to A4 are informed of their right to receive a free copy of the judgment, which shall be furnished to them now.
The M.Os.1 to 5 shall be handed over to the committal court with a direction to destroy the same after the lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending.
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.361/2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 to A4.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.7 and elder sister of P.W.2. P.W.1 is living by doing coolie work. They are residing in the house bearing D.No.3-17A-54C, 1st
Street, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada. P.W.7 is doing as an electrician. The house of the accused is located at a little distance from the house of the P.W.1. The waste water canal is located between their houses.
One of the accused was pouring the waste material in the said drainage canal. For which, there is decomposed emanating foul smell. On that, P.W.1 told with one of the accused and instructed not to pour the waste material in the drainage. However, the accused were continuing to pour the waste material in the drainage. While stood thus, on 28-10-2020 at 8-00 p.m., P.W.1 asked her neighbours by the name Satyavathi, who is the wife of Konda
Annavaram about the pouring of the waste material in the drainage. On that, a petty altercation raised between the parties. P.W.7 came there and picked up his wife into the house with an intention not to raise the altercation.
4
3.On the next day i.e., on 29-10-2020 at 12-00 noon, A1 to A4 came on the cement road situated in front of the house of the P.W.1, and raised hues calling P.W.7 to come out from the house and scolded P.Ws.1 and 7 in filthy language on the issue raised on the previous day. On that, P.W.7 came down from the terrace. Immediately, A1 raised hues against P.W.7, threatened him, and then had beaten on his head with crowbar, which was picked up with him. As a result, P.W.7 sustained severe bleeding injury on his head. On seeing the incident, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed there and tried to stop the altercation, meantime, A2 to A4 pounced upon P.Ws.1 and 2 and had beaten them with brick stones. As a result, P.W.2 sustained bleeding injuries on his forehead and lips were splitted and sustained bleeding injuries. On hearing the hues, P.Ws.3 to 6 along with others, who are neighbours, rushed there and separated them. Then, P.W.1 shifted the injured persons i.e., P.Ws.2 and 7 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment.
4.P.W.11-Casuality Medical Officer issued MLC intimation to the Station
House Officer, Out Post Police Station, Government General Hospital,
Kakinada. P.W.9 received MLC intimations of P.Ws.2 and 7 and recorded the statement of P.W.1, and then transmitted the same to the S.H.O., Sarpavaram
Police station on the point of jurisdiction. Based on them, P.W.10 registered a case in Cr.No.361/2020 of Sarpavaram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code on 29-10- 2020 at 6-00 p.m., and issued First Information Report.
5.During the course of investigation, P.W.10 visited Government General
Hospital, Kakinada. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, and collected blood stained red and black colour checks design full hands shirt from P.W.2. He visited the scene of offence; examined the same and got drafted the scene observation report on 29-10-2020 by seizing four broken brick pieces from the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.9- 5 Katta Srinivas. He examined P.Ws.3 to 7 on 30-10-2020, and collected blood stained full hands white, green and blue coloured stripes torn shirt on its right hand and blood stained white, green and tamarind coloured checks design towel from P.W.7. He arrested A1 and A2 on 30-10-2020 based on their confessional statements, and seized iron crowbar from the possession of A1 under cover of mediators report in the presence of above mediators.
He sent A1 and A2 to the court and got remanded them on 31-10-2020. He prepared a letter of advise and addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Kakinada, and sent the seized material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada, and later he received report from RFSL, Vijayawada, who analysed the seized material objects 1 to 5 and issued report. P.W.11 who examined P.Ws.2 and 7 issued wound certificates opining that P.W.2 sustained simple injuries, might have been caused by blunt object, and P.W.7 sustained grievous injuries, might have been caused by blunt object. Based on the wound certificates,
P.W.10 altered the Section of Law into Sections 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code from Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. On 19-11- 2020, A3 and A4 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble IV Addl. District
Judge, Kakinada, and surrendered before the court with sureties and enlarged
on bail. On completion of the investigation, P.W.10 filed charge sheet in this case.
6.The learned Spl. Mobile J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada, took cognizance of the offence, numbered the case as PRC.No.45/2022 and committed the matter to the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Rajamahendravaram. The
Hon’ble Principal District Court, Rajamahendravaram, numbered the same as
S.C.No.304/2023 and made over the same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
7.On receipt of the summons, A1 to A4 are appeared before the court.
Heard on both sides on the charges. The contents of the charge sheet were 6 read over and explained to A1 to A4, who denied them as false and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, Charges under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against A1 to A4; under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code against
A1 and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against A2 to A4, have been framed. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied them, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
8.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 5.
9.After the completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same as false and stated that there is no defence evidence on their behalf.
10. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire material in the record. Considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12, coupled with Exs.P1 to P12,
M.Os.1 to 5, and other material on record.
11.Now, the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34, 326, 324 of the
Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt”?
P O I N T:
12.On perusal of the record, it is the case of the prosecution that on 29-10-2020 at 12-00 noon, A1 to A4 called P.W.7 by raising hues and when he came down from the terrace, A1 had beaten on his head with crow bar causing severe bleeding injury on his head, and when P.W.2 interfered, A2 to
A4 had beaten him with brick stones causing bleeding injuries on his forehead and lips, keeping in view of the drainage issue happened on the previous day between P.W.1 and Satyavathi, in regard to the pouring of the 7 waste material in the drainage. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 to 5. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.Ws.2 and 7 are the injured persons. P.Ws.3 to 6 are the neighbours of P.Ws.1 and 7. P.W.8 is the mediator at the time of scene observation and arrest-cum-seizure. P.W.9 is the A.S.I., who recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.10 is the investigating officer. P.W.11 is the doctor, who examined P.Ws.2 and 7. P.W.12 is the Neuro Surgeon, who examined
P.W.7. As per the evidence on record, admittedly, P.W.1 is the elder sister of
P.W.2 and wife of P.W.7. P.W.3 is the cousin of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is the tenant of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the neighbor of both parties. P.W.6 is the brother of
P.W.7. Admittedly, A1 is the husband of A3, and A4 is the wife of A2.
13.During hearing arguments, the learned additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 are cogent, corroborating with each other, and the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned counsel for all the accused argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 suffered with several material contradictions and omissions; hence, sought for acquittal of all the accused.
14.In regard to the drainage issue, admittedly, there is drainage in front of the house of P.W.1, and the house of the accused is situated to the back of
P.W.1’s house. It is the evidence of the P.W.1 that the accused used to throw garbage in the drainage, and they have no habit of cleaning the same; hence, she questioned the parents of A2 and A3 by the names Konda
Annavaram and Satyavathi on 28-10-2020 at 8-00 p.m., and Satyavathi made galata with her stating that they would pour garbage in the future also, meantime, P.W.7 who is the husband of P.W.1 interfered and pacified the issue and picked up his wife into the house. Supporting the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2 deposed that on 28-10-2020 at 8-00 p.m., Konda Annavaram and
Satyavathi made galata with P.W.1 and P.W.7 in regard to the dumping of 8 garbage in the drainage, and P.W.7 pacified the issue. P.W.4, who is the previous tenant of P.W.1 deposed that at two years back on one night at 7-00 p.m., Konda Annavaram and his wife Satyavathi made galata with P.W.1 and her husband in regard to the dumping garbage in the drainage.
Supporting their evidence, P.W.7 deposed that at two years back on one night at 7-00 p.m., Konda Annavaram and Satyavathi made galata with his wife in regard to dumping of garbage in the drainage, and he pacified the issue.
Admittedly, either P.W.1 or P.W.7 did not give police report on the issue allegedly happened on 28-10-2020 in respect of the altercation between
Satyavathi and P.W.1 in respect of the drainage issue. Admittedly, the house of the accused is facing towards southern side, and the house of the P.W.1 is situated towards east, and that their houses are in ‘L’ shape and the drainage is in ‘T’ shape up to NFCL wall. As per the evidence of P.W.8- mediator also the houses of the P.W.1 and accused are situated side by side.
As per the evidence of P.W.10-investigating officer, the house of P.W.1 is having ground floor and 1st floor and the accused is having only ground floor.
Further as per evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 also they did not complain to the
Municipality, except objecting the parents of A1 and A2 to pour garbage in the drain due to bad smell. Though, P.W.3 not deposed before the court about the said issue, he admitted during his cross-examination by the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor that he had stated before the police about the galata of
Konda Satyavathi with P.Ws.1 and 7 on 28-10-2020 at 8-00 p.m., in respect of the dumping of garbage in the drain. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute in regard to the location of both the houses at the same locality. On perusal the entire evidence on record, the altercation took place on 28-10-2020 at night between the mother of A1, A2 and P.Ws.1 and 7 in regard to the drainage issue. Though, there is a dispute between the parties in regard to the drainage, admittedly either P.W.1 or P.W.7 did not 9 complain to the police in regard to the alleged incident happened on 28-10- 2020 against the parents of A1 and A2. However, it might be the motive for the alleged incident occurred on the next day afternoon, as per the prosecution case.
15.In regard to the alleged incident and the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 29-10-2020 at 12-00 noon, A1 came with crowbar and scolded against her husband to come down, and when
P.W.7 went to ground floor, A1 had beaten her husband with crowbar on his left side of the head, as a result, blood was oozed from his nose and ear and he sustained head injury. P.W.1 further deposed that when P.W.2 interfered to rescue P.W.7, A2 to A4 had beaten P.W.2 with bricks causing injuries on his fore-head and lips, and then their neighbours interfered and rescued P.Ws.2 and 7. Supporting the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 deposed that on 29-10-2020 at 12-00 noon, A1 to A4 came to the house of P.W.1 and shouted against
P.W.7 to come to ground floor that they would see his end, and when P.W.7 came to ground floor, A1 had beaten P.W.7 with crowbar on his head, as a result, he sustained head injury and blood was oozed from his nose and ear.
It is further evidence of P.W.2 that while he was rescuing P.W.7, A3 and A4 had thrown bricks on him as a result, he sustained injuries on his forehead and lips and on arrival of the neighbours, all the accused left the scene.
Supporting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.7 who is another injured person deposed that on the next day of the alleged drainage issue, at 12-00 noon,
A1 to A4 came to their house and shouted against him to come to ground floor, and when he came to ground floor, A1 had beaten him with crowbar on his head, as a result, he sustained head injury and blood was oozed from his nose and ear, and while P.W.2 was rescuing him, A2 to A4 had beaten with bricks causing injuries on his forehead and lips.
10
16.In regard to the alleged incident and the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7, the prosecution also examined the neighbours of P.W.1 i.e., P.Ws.3 to
6. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that at two years back on one day at 12-00 noon, when he went to the house for lunch, he found P.Ws.2 and 7 with injuries, and he came to know through others that the accused caused injuries to them. Though P.W.3 not stated in his chief examination, he admitted during his cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that all the accused had beaten P.Ws.2 and 7 in his presence on the next day of the alleged drainage issue at 12-00 noon, and he tried to rescue P.Ws.2 and 7 from the hands of the accused. Admittedly, A2 is the brother-in-law of
P.W.3, as such, P.W.3 might have not deposed about the incident in his chief examination. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross- examine P.W.3, since the witness deposed in his chief examination contrary to the contents of Ex.P2-statement, in regard to the material aspects and the witness admitted about the commission of the offence by the accused during his cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Further,
P.W.3 also denied the suggestion in his cross-examination made by the learned counsel for all the accused that he does not know about the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7. The evidence of P.W.3 itself clearly shows that he was present at the time of both incidents, and his evidence can be believable. Further, P.W.4 who is the previous tenant of P.W.1 deposed that on the next day of the alleged drainage issue at 12-00 noon approximately, while she was present in the house, P.W.7 came to the house for lunch, A1 to
A4 came near the house of P.W.1 and shouted against P.W.7 about the incident occurred on the previous night and called P.W.7 and when he came down, A1 had beaten him with crowbar on his head causing injuries, A3 and
A4 had beaten P.W.2 with bricks causing injuries on his forehead and lips. It is the evidence of P.W.5 who is known person to both parties, that at two years 11 back on one day at 12-00 noon, when he went to the house for lunch, he rushed to the scene of offence on hearing shouts from the house of P.W.1 and found that A1 was beating P.W.7 with crowbar on his head, as a result, P.W.7 sustained head injury, A3 and A4 had beaten P.W.2 with stones and he sustained injuries on his forehead and lips. Further it is the evidence of P.W.6 that at two years back on one day at 12-00 noon, while he was present in the house, she heard shouts from the house of P.W.1, rushed there and found injuries on P.Ws.2 and 7, on enquiry, she came to know that A1 had beaten
P.W.7 with crowbar on his head causing head injury and A2 to A4 had beaten
P.W.2 with stones causing injuries on his fore head and lips. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 7 is corroborated in regard to the alleged incident and the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7.
17.In regard to the report to the police, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she shifted P.Ws.2 to 7 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment at where, police recorded her Ex.P1-statement and obtained her signature.
Supporting her evidence, P.Ws.2 and 7 categorically deposed that P.W.1 shifted them to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment.
Further, P.Ws.4 to 7 categorically deposed that the injured were shifted to the hospital for treatment. Further, P.Ws.1 to 7 categorically deposed that the police examined and recorded their statements. Supporting the evidence of
P.W.1, P.W.9 deposed that on 29-10-2020 at 1-40 p.m., he received Ex.P5-MLC intimation from duty doctor, as he was deputed at Out Post Police Station,
Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and immediately he rushed there and recorded Ex.P1-statement of P.W.1 and handedover the same to
Sarpavaram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction to take further action.
Corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 9, P.W.10-investigating officer deposed that he received Exs.P1 and P5 on 29-10-2020 at 6-00 p.m., based on them; he registered a case in Cr.No.361/2020 of Sarpavaram police 12 station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code against A1 to A4 and issued Ex.P6-First Information Report. On perusal of the record, the alleged incident was happened on 29-10-2020 at 12-00 noon, and the injured were shifted to the hospital on the same day at 01-08 p.m., and P.W.9 received Ex.P5 on the same day at 01-40 p.m., and recorded Ex.P1-statement of P.W.1 at 2-00 p.m., and then, at 6-00 p.m., on the same day, P.W.8 registered Ex.P6-First Information Report. There is no delay in registering First Information Report to believe that the accused are falsely implicated in this case.
18.In regard to the injuries sustained by P.W.1, the prosecution also examined P.Ws.11 and 12, who are medical officers. It is the evidence of
P.W.11 that on 29-10-2020 at 1-08 p.m., he examined P.W.7 and found bleeding in his left ear and nose and he was in drozy and he found laceration at her left temporal region of 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and he referred him for CT brain. It is further evidence of P.W.11 that as per the opinion of neuro surgeon i.e., Ex.P12, he found sub dural hemorrhage in involving left frontal parietal temporal occipital and left cerebellar region and falax and also found fracture of left parietal temporal occipital and zygomatic and accordingly he issued
Ex.P11-wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by P.W.7 are grievous in nature, might have been caused by blunt object and the age of injury is between 0-6 hours prior to his examination. Supporting his evidence,
P.W.12, Neuro Surgeon deposed that he examined P.W.7 on 29-10-2020 and took CT brain plain and as per the report of CT brain plain, he found sub dural haemotoma measuring 4 mm in thickness involving left frontal, parietal, temporal, occipital and left cerebellar regions; sub dural haematoma involving falax; and fracture notes involving left parietal, temporal, occipital and zygomatac bones and issued Ex.P12-CT brain plain report opining that he sustained grievous injuries. It is the further evidence of P.W.11 in regard to 13 the injuries sustained by P.W.2 that he examined him on 29-10-2020 at 1-39 p.m., and found 2 cm x 0.5 cm laceration at upper lip; 1 cm x 0.5 cm laceration at lower lip; 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm laceration on forehead and issued Ex.P10-wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 are simple in nature, might have been caused by blunt object and the age of the injury is 0-6 hours prior to his examination. Supporting the evidence of
P.Ws.11 and 12, P.W.10-investigating officer deposed that he received
Exs.P10 and P11-wound certificates of P.Ws.2 and 7 respectively from P.W.11-
Casualty Medical Officer. In regard to the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 coupled with Exs.P10 to 12. As per the evidence of P.W.12, the case sheet and x-ray report are not available at hospital due to renovation. Further, as per the cross-examination of P.W.11, the injured persons informed him that they sustained injuries due to assault by known persons. Though, P.W.11 deposed in his cross-examination that the nature of injuries sustained by
P.Ws.2 and 7 are possible due to fell on hard surface, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P5-MLC intimation clearly shows that they sustained injuries due to assault, as stated before the doctor by P.Ws.2 and 7.
19.In regard to the scene of offence, it is the contention of the accused that nobody had shown scene of offence to the investigating officer. As per prosecution case coupled with Ex.P7-rough sketch, the scene of offence is shown in front of the house of P.W.1 on the cement road. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 7 clearly shows that the alleged incident was happened in front of the house of the P.W.1. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.10 in regard to the investigation that, after recording the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, he visited the scene of offence by securing the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.8 and
L.W.9-Katta Srinivas at where, he seized M.O.5 under cover of Ex.P3-scene observation report and then, drafted Ex.P7-rough sketch and also took 14 photographs at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident itself. It is further evidence of P.W.10 that on the next day i.e., on 30-10-2020, he again visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of
P.Ws.3 to 6, and then visited Government General Hospital, Kakinada at where, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.7 and seized M.Os.2 to 4 from his possession. Supporting the evidence of P.W.10, it is the evidence of P.W.8, who is mediator in this case, that on 29-10-2020 at evening, he went to the police station on the request of Sarpavram police, and then he accompanied with Sub-Inspector of police and his staff by jeep and reached the house of P.W.7, at where the police observed the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of L.W.9-Katta Srinivas and seized four pieces of bricks i.e., M.O.5 under cover of Ex.P3-scene observation report drafted by L.W.9-Katta Srinivas. Furthermore, it is the contention of the accused that one case in counter is registered at police station. P.W.10 admitted during his cross-examination that Cr.No.363/2020 is registered. Either prosecution or the accused did not place any material
before the court showing pending counter case before the court of law
against the defacto-complainant or against P.W.7 herein. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 8 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.10-investigating officer in regard to the alleged scene of offence; hence, there is no discrepancy in respect of the alleged scene of offence, which was happened in front of the house of P.W.1.
20.In regard to the arrest-cum-seizure of material objects, it is further evidence of P.W.10 that he arrested A1 and A2 at their house on 30-10-2020 based on their confessional statements and seized M.O.1 from the possession of A1 under cover of Ex.P4-arrest-cum-seizure report in the presence of the above mediators and sent them to the court, and got remanded them. It is further evidence of P.W.10 that A3 and A4 are enlarged on anticipatory bail. It 15 is further evidence of P.W.10 that he sent the seized material objects i.e.,
M.Os.1 to 5 to RFSL, under Ex.P8-letter of advice and received Ex.P9-report from RFSL and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case. Admittedly, he did not secure mediators while seizing M.Os.2 to 4 from the possession of P.W.7 at hospital. Though P.W.1 deposed during her cross examination that the police had collected the material objects from her house in her absence, P.W.7 deposed that the police recovered his shirt and towel and the shirt of P.W.2, crowbar and bricks.
21.Further several other contentions have been raised on facts and law by the defence. The main contentions are about the scene of offence that nobody had shown to the investigating officer, no evidence in respect of the prior day incident or report to the police or to the Municipality in respect of the prior day incident, radiologist not examined, and no mediators secured while seizure of M.Os.2 to 4, which aspects have to be scrutinized. In regard to the first contention, there is no discrepancy in regard to the scene of offence as already discussed above. On perusal of the oral evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 7, though no report to the police or to the municipality was given by P.W.1 or P.W.2, the altercation took place just prior day of the incident, in regard to the drainage issue between the parents of A1, A2 and P.Ws.1, 7, which is the only motive for the present incident between the parties, as already discussed above. Further P.W.10 seized M.Os.1 and 5, which are the weapons used by A1 to A4 in committing the offence under Ex.P4-seizure mediators report and under Ex.P3-scene observation report respectively in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.9-Katta Srinivasa. The evidence of P.W.8 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.10-investigating officer in regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 5 from the scene of offence, which is enough to prove that the investigating officer secured the presence of mediators, while seizure of weapons and P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 8 are also identified the material 16 objects seized by the police in their respective evidence. Further the ocular evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 coupled with the Exs.P10 to P12, disclosed that
P.W.2 was sustained simple injuries and P.W.7 was sustained grievous injuries.
In regard to the seizure of crime weapons i.e., M.Os.1 and 5-crowbar and bricks, which were alleged to have been used by the accused at the time of incident, from which, P.Ws.2 and 7 sustained injuries and when the nature of injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7 from the hands of all the accused are tallied with Exs.P10 to P12-medical reports issued by P.Ws.11 and 12 in this case, merely because the minor contradictions cannot be a factor to discard the entire case of the prosecution.
22. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute in regard to the identity of all the accused in this case, since there is relationship between the parties. The case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence of injured P.Ws.2 and 7 corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 6 to the extent of facts known to them, and the P.Ws.11 and 12-medical officers, who were given treatment to the injured P.Ws.2 and 7 issued Exs.10 to 12-reports. As seen from the above evidence, the injured P.Ws.2 and 7 consistently deposed about the date of offence, place of the offence, time at which, the incident is happened and also narrated the manner of incident happened and in what way the A1 to A4 are attacked on them with crowbar and bricks causing injuries on their persons. Furthermore, P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 also deposed the motive for the occurrence of the incident stating that one altercation was taken place just prior day of the incident. Therefore, the injuries noted in Exs.P10 to P12-medical reports of P.Ws.2 and 7, regarding the nature and place of injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7, and to that extent, the evidence of medical officers not able to discredit by the defense counsel during cross-examination, except suggesting the oral testimony of the injured and other material witnesses. In regard to the non examination of 17 radiologist, this court relied on a decision reported in 2016 (4) East Cri. Case 625, between Surendra Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand, wherein the Honorable
Court held that “in the light of direct evidence on the point of injury and
the injury report it was held that non production of x-ray report was not
fatal for proof of case under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code”. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, who are direct eye witnesses to the incident, is corroborated in regard to the occurrence of incident and the injuries sustained by P.Ws.2 and 7 and the same is corroborated with the medical evidence also. No doubt, there are minor contradictions in their evidence, which cannot be thrown out the entire case of the prosecution. However, on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, this court is of view that their evidence is natural, cogent and convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve their version only because they implicated all the accused in false case. During cross-examination also, the defence counsel failed to discredit their evidence in any manner and did not elicit new things contrary to the evidence deposed in their chief examination or to the entire case of the prosecution.
23.In the light of the above discussion and decision, and the evidence recorded is found to be truthful in regard to the incident, and no reason to disbelieve their evidence and to believe that all the accused are falsely implicated in this case. The discrepancies raised by the learned defence counsel are minor in nature, which does not go into the root of the prosecution case; therefore, it need not be given much importance to minor contradictions and omissions. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, there is no evidence before the court by the prosecution that P.W.7 sustained injuries which resulted to cause his death and also not placed the case sheet before the court showing that he underwent surgery.
Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, which is sufficient 18 to prove that A1 caused grievous hurt voluntarily with dangerous weapon to
P.W.7, and such conduct falls within the ambit of Section 326 of Indian Penal
Code, which is lesser cognate offence to Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, though the prosecution not examined the radiologist, who took CT scan upon the person of P.W.7, P.Ws.11 and 12 specifically deposed about the fracture injury sustained by P.W.7 in the incident. Since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not established against all the accused, A1 is liable for punishment of the offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code.
Further A2 to A4 caused simple hurt voluntarily with weapon, which is an offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, and the guilt of
A2 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and A2 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and they are liable for the punishment under Section 235(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me
in open court on this the 19th day of February, 2024
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada FAC Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kakinada
24. A1 to A4, when asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them, A1, A2 stated that (recorded on a separate Sheet), they are labour by profession and having two children to each; A2 further stated that he is having old aged parents; A3 and A4 stated that they are having two children to each, A1 to A4 further stated that that if they convicted in this case and sent to jail, their family members will be suffered a lot, and 19 requested the court to take a lenient view in imposing sentence against them.
25.However, considering the nature of the offences proved against all the accused and its gravity, this court is not inclined to invoke the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in favour of all the accused.
However, keeping in view of the pleas made by all the accused, their age, and more particularly the social background under which they are living, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take some leniency. The circumstances do justify considering them leniently.
In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In case of default, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months as a default sentence. Out of fine amount,
Rs.9,000/- shall pay to P.W.7 as compensation after lapse of appeal time.
Further, A2 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and they convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and they sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three thousand each only). In case of default,
A2 to A4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.6,000/- shall pay to P.W.2 as compensation after lapse of appeal time.
20 The remand period undergone by A1 and A2 in this case from 31-10-2020 to 19-11-2020 shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal
Procedure Code. A3 and A4 were released on anticipatory bail and not in judicial custody during the earlier phases of the case, there is no period of set off to A3 and A4.
A1 to A4 are informed of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble
Appellate Court and they are also informed about their right to get free legal aid from the Hon’ble Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority, Kakinada.
A1 to A4 are informed of their right to receive a free copy of the judgment, which shall be furnished to them now.
The M.Os.1 to 5 shall be handed over to the committal court with a direction to destroy the same after the lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me
in open court on this the 19th day of February, 2024
Sd/-Smt M.V.N.Padmaja,
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada FAC/Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kakinada
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: Talliboina Rani P.W.2: Katari Srinivasu @ Srinivasarao P.W.3: Katari Venkanna P.W.4: Gandikota Mary Kumari P.W.5: Gady Aruna Kumar P.W.6: Talliboina Talupulamma P.W.7: Talliboina Venkanna P.W.8: Bonthu Satheesh Kumar P.W.9: Konala Vara Kumar, ASI of Police P.W.10: N.Satish Babu, S.I of Police P.W.11: V.Subhashini, Doctor P.W.12: Dr.G.Rajasekhar, Doctor
FOR DEFENCE:
Nil 21
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1: Statement of P.W1 Ex.P2: Relevant portion of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C Ex.P3: Scene observation report, dated, 29-10-2020 Ex.P4: Seizure-cum-arrest of A1 and A2, dated, 30-10-2020 Ex.P5: MLC intimation Ex.P6: Original First Information Report Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Letter of Advise along with covering letter Ex.P9: Original report from RFSL, dated, 29-12-2020 Ex.P10: Wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P11: Wound certificate of P.W.7 Ex.P12: CT brain plain report
FOR DEFENCE:
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O1: Crowbar M.O2: White, green and tamarind colour checks designed towel M.O3: White, green and blue coloured stripes shirt torn on right hand M.O4: Red and black checks design full hands shirt M.O5: Four pieces of bricks
Sd/-Smt M.V.N.Padmaja
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,
Kakinada FAC/Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kakinada // True Copy //
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada.
22
C A L E N D A R
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: KAKINADA
PRESENT:Smt M.V.N.PADMAJA
II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA
FAC/PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, KAKINADA
Monday, this the 19th day of February, 2024
SESSIONS CASE No.304/2023
(PRC.No.45/2022 of Spl.Mobible J.F.C. Magistrate’s Court, Kakinada in Cr.No.361/2020 of SHO, Sarpavaram Police Station)
Complainant: Accused:
State: Sub-Inspector of Police,A1. Gullapalli Durga Rao @ Durga Rao, Sarpavaram Police Station. Aged25years,C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A2. Konda Venkatesh, S/o Annavaram, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3- 17A-54C, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada A3. Gullapalli Ramana, W/o Durga Rao @ Durgalu, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A4. Konda Manikanta, W/o Venkatesh @ Venkanna, Aged 28 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3-17A-54C, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada
Prosecution conducted by: Accused defended by:
Sri Radha Krishnam Raju, Sri B.Ramalinga Sarma, Learned Counsel
Additional Public Prosecutor, for Accused Nos.1 to 4
Kakinada
Nature of Offence:Under Section 307, 326, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty
Name of the police station and Sarpavaram P.S., Cr.No.361/2020 crime Number :
Finding of the Judge:Found guilty
In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for 23 the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Sentence of order: 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In case of default, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.9,000/- shall pay to P.W.7 as compensation after lapse of appeal time. Further, A2 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and they convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and they sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three thousand each only). In case of default, A2 to A4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.6,000/- shall pay to P.W.2 as compensation after lapse of appeal time. The remand period undergone by A1 and A2 in this case from 31-10-2020 to 19-11-2020 shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. A3 and A4 were released on anticipatory bail and not in judicial custody during the earlier phases of the case, there is no period of set off to A3 and A4. A1 to A4 are informed of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Court and they are also informed about their right to get free legal aid from the Hon’ble 24 Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority, Kakinada. A1 to A4 are informed of their right to receive a free copy of the judgment, which shall be furnished to them now. The M.Os.1 to 5 shall be handed over to the committal court with a direction to destroy the same after the lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending.
Date of Offence: 29-10-2020 Date of Complaint: 29-10-2020 Apprehension of accused: 30-10-2020 Commencement of trial: 14-11-2023 Close of Trial: 09-01-2024 Sentence/Order: 19-02-2024 Explanation for Delay:
This case has been made over to this Court by the Court of Sessions, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in Dis.No.7354, dated 04-10-2023 for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused 1 to 4 on 31-10-2023 before this court, charges have been framed. In this case, P.Ws.1 to 12 are examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Trial of the case commenced on 14-11-2023 and closed on 09-01-2024. Accused 1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 12-01-2024 and judgment is pronounced on 19-02-2024. Hence, there is no in-ordinate delay.
Sd/-Smt M.V.N.Padmaja,
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. FAC/Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kakinada Copies submitted to:
1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.
2.The Directorate of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.
3.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.
5.The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
6.The Spl. Mobile J.F.C.Magistrate’s Court, Kakinada
7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kakinada.
// True Copy //
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada.
25
TABULAR FORM
TO BE APPENDED TO THE JUDGMENT AS PER THE RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL
RULES OF PRACTICE
SESSIONS CASE No.304/2023
1.Sessions Case Number: 304 of 2023
2.PRC Number: 45 of 2022
3.Crime Number and Name of the : Crime No.361 of 2020 of S.H.O., Police StationSarpavaram Police Station
4.Description of the accused: A1. Gullapalli Durga Rao @ Durga Rao, Aged25years,C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A2. Konda Venkatesh, S/o Annavaram, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3- 17A-54C, Sitarama Nagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada A3. Gullapalli Ramana, W/o Durga Rao @ Durgalu, Aged 30 years, C/Sagara, Upparagudem, Isukapalli Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal A4. Konda Manikanta, W/o Venkatesh @ Venkanna, Aged 28 years, C/Sagara, D.No.3-17A-54C,SitaramaNagar, Godarigunta, Kakinada
5.Date of
a) Offence: 29-10-2022
b) Complaint: 29-10-2022
c) Apprehension of accused: 30-10-2022
d) Released on bail: 01-12-2020
e) Committal: 18-01-2023
f) Commencement of trial: 14-11-2023
g) Closure of trial: 09-01-2024
h) Judgment: 19-02-2024 26
6.Result: In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In case of default, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.9,000/- shall pay to P.W.7 as compensation after lapse of appeal time. Further, A2 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and they convicted in terms of Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and they sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three thousand each only). In case of default, A2 to A4 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each as a default sentence. Out of fine amount, Rs.6,000/- shall pay to P.W.2 as compensation after lapse of appeal time. The remand period undergone by A1 and A2 in this case from 31-10-2020 to 19-11-2020 shall be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. A3 and A4 were released on anticipatory bail and not in judicial custody during the earlier phases of the case, there is no period of set off to A3 and A4. A1 to A4 are informed of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble Appellate Court and they are also informed about their right to get free legal aid from the
Hon’ble Chairman, Mandal Legal Services
Authority, Kakinada. A1 to A4 are informed of their right to receive a free copy of the judgment, which shall be furnished to them now. The M.Os.1 to 5 shall be handed over to the committal court with a direction to destroy the same after the lapse of appeal time if no appeal is pending.
27
7.Explanation for delay in this Court: This case has been made over to this
Court by the Court of Sessions, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in Dis.No.7354, dated 04-10-2023 for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused 1 to 4 on 31-10-2023 before this court, charges have been framed. In this case, P.Ws.1 to 12 are examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Trial of the case commenced on 14-11-2023 and closed on 09-01-2024. Accused 1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 12-01-2024 and judgmentispronouncedon 19-02-2024. Hence, there is no in-ordinate delay.
Sd/-Smt M.V.N.Padmaja,
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. FAC/Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kakinada
Compact Disc submitted to the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Copies submitted to:
1.The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.
2.The Directorate of Prosecution, Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.
3.The Hon'ble District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.
5.The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
6.The Spl. Mobile J.F.C.Magistrate’s Court, Kakinada
7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Kakinada.
// True Copy //
II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,
Kakinada.