Mohd Abdul Khaleel

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: NARAYANPET.

Dated, this Friday, 31st day of July, 2020

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

C.C.No. 322 of 2015

Between State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Krishna.

…Complainant.

And

1)Chevitolla Thayappa S/o. Kadappa, age 55 yrs.

2)Chevitolla Vasanthamma W/o.Thayamma, age 35 yrs.

3)Kadechur Thimmanna S/o. Narsappa, age 25 yrs.

All Caste: Telugu, Occ. Agri., R/o. Gudeballur village.

...Accused.

Note: On the death report, the case against A1 is abated.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri B.Yadaiah A.P.P. Kodangal FAC,

Narayanpet on behalf of the State and of Sri.Mallikarjun,

Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

Offence U/s: 498-A, 494, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.

-o0o-

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 28.5.2015 at 1730 hours, the complainant Chevitolla Laxmi gave police report by alleging that the accused A1 was her husband who married her

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 2

about 18 years back and she blessed with two daughters by name Anitha and Maheshwari aged about 15 and 13 years respectively and due to the harassment of her husband, she got separated from him and started living in Lingampally village with her mother and later her husband married A2 with the help of

A3 and blessed with two children. On 28.5.2015 at 1.00 p.m., she and her mother and her daughters went to Gudeballur village to the house of A1 to enquire with him about the marriage alliance of her daughter and also asking him to financial assistance. Then the A1 beat her with stick on her head and she was rescued by some other persons including her daughters and later they went to police station and gave report to the police.

Police registered the case vide Cr.No. 22/14, sent the injured to hospital and the doctor who treated the injured opined that they sustained simple injuries and after examination of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and after conclusion of elaborate investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for committing the offences u/s. 498-A, 494, 324 r/w. 34 IPC.

2.This court taken cognizance of the offence u/s. 498-A, 494, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC, against A1 to A3.

3.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents were furnished to them u/s.207 Cr.P.C and subsequently when they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the charges levelled against them u/s. 498-A, 494, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC, to which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (9) witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

5.After close of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined u/s. 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating circumstances made against them, for which the accused denied

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 3

the same and reported no defence evidence. On filing the death report, the case against A1 is abated.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is clearly and clinchingly the establishing the guilt of the accused. As such, he prayed the court to convict the accused.

8.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that absolutely from the stage of First

Information Report, there is no averment against the accused to punish him for 498-A, 494 IPC and even with regard to the charge u/s. 324 IPC, no cogent evidence is placed and he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of doubt.

I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

9.It is to be noted in this case is that in the recent past the accused A1 died due to natural death and the case against him is abated. To substantiate their case prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of the following witnesses.

10.PW1 (Chevitolla Laxmi) is the injured complainant and she deposed that A1 was her husband who died about two months back and about 20 years back she married A1 in one temple at

Krishna village and blessed with three daughters. For the next 14 years she lived happily and on one day she went to celebrate festival in the village of her mother and in her absence, A1 married A2 and brought her to their village and that was

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 4

informed to her by one Venkappa who is the brother of A1. Then she went to the village and enquired with A1 about his marriage with A2. On that A1 beat him and her mother brought back her and then onwards she was living with her mother and later she gave report to the police.

11.PW2 (Chevitolla Nagamani) is one of the daughter of PW1 and she deposed that on 28.5.2015, her mother is telephoned to

A1 about the marriage alliance of her to which he did not responded. On that she along with her mother and sisters and grandmother went to Gudeballur village and her father A1 was with A2 in the house and when her mother PW1 asked A1 about the marriage alliance of her of this witness, on that A1 attacked her with stick on her head and on seeing it when her grandmother LW2 tried to rescue her mother PW1, then A2 pushed LW2 and she along with her sister saw the incident and went to Krishna P.S., where her mother gave report and she was treated in the hospital.

12.PW3 (Vaddera Durgamma) is the mother of PW1. She deposed that about 25 years back the marriage of PW1 with A1 who is no more was performed in Laxmitata temple in Krishna village, about 10 years after her marriage, the accused A1 and

PW1 quarreled and after the birth of daughter of A1, started harassing PW1 and about 10 years back, A1 married A2 secretly due to difference with PW1 and also beat her. A3 tried to beat

PW3.

13.PW4 (Chevitolla Anitha) is another daughter of PW1 and she deposed that about 4 years back when she, her sister and mother went to Gudeballur village to the house of A1 and asked him to support financially for the marriage of PW2 and since after marrying A2 her father was living separately with his second wife and on that day her father was not there in the house. Later he came and beat her mother with stick and A2 and

A3 also beat her mother due to which her mother sustained

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 5

head injury and she along with her sisters took to Krishna P.S., and after filing the case, her mother was shifted to Government hospital, Makthal.

14.PW5 (Abdul Razzak) is the investigating officer who deposed about registration of this case on 28.5.2015 at 1700 hours on the report of PW1 and after registering the case, he recorded the statements of witnesses and injured and sent the injured LWs1 and 2 to Government hospital and then went to the scene of offence and also obtained medical reports of the injured in which the doctor opined that they sustained simple injuries.

On 30.5.2015, he binds over A1 to A3 and later filed charge sheet against them etc.

15.PW6 (Chevitolla Lingappa) is the independent eye witness.

He turned hostile. PW7 (Gujjula Tayappa) and PW8 (B.Laxman) are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama.

They both turned hostile.

16.PW9 (Dr.M.Samatha) is the medical officer who treated

LWs1 and 2 and she deposed that on 28.5.2015 on the requisition of police, she examined PW1 and found one cut injury on her fore head and another injury on right parietal region and abrasion on right elbow and age of injury was one day and all the injuries are simply in nature. On examination of LW2

Durgamma, she found one laceration over right occipital region and might have caused with blunt object and she gave medical certificate in that effect.

17.The first charge levelled against the accused is u/s.498-A

IPC. To prove it, the prosecution might prove the following ingredients; 1)There must be a married woman, 2)That married woman should be subjected to cruelty, 3)She must be subjected to such cruelty either by the husband or by the relatives of the husband.

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 6

18.Cruelty means any willful misconduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, either it must be physical or mental or for demand of dowry.

19.Keeping those ingredients in background let me discuss the evidence on record.

20.In fact, the marriage of A1 with PW1 was performed in

Krishna village in a temple about 25 years back. Thereafter for about 18 years they lived happily and she blessed with 3 daughters. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated any harassment to PW1 by A1. Simply a bare statement was made by PW1 that after the marriage after 18 years of her marriage, on one day she went to celebrate one festival at her mother’s village and secretly A1 married another woman. She did not mention any instances of demand of additional dowry by A1 or beating her and torturing her physically and mental for demanding of additional dowry or dowry. So, on perusal of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses none of them has stated anything about the demand of dowry. More over the marriage between A1 and PW1 was also disputed and he denied.

It is suggestion of accused A1 that A2 alone is his wife and he got two daughters with her and there is no marital relationship between A1 and PW1 and no efforts were made by the prosecution to prove the marriage, since it took place long back about 25 years back. Even though marriage is admitted but there is no proof placed before the court about the physical or mental harassment of the accused A1 towards PW1. So the above said ingredients of section 498-A IPC, are nowhere proved. Relatives A2 and A3 are wrongly roped in this case since the charge u/s. 498-A IPC does not attracts to them.

21.Moreover the evidence of independent eye witnesses who turned hostile is also supporting the case of accused not the case of the prosecution so it can be safely said that the

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 7

ingredients of section 498-A IPC, are nowhere proved by the prosecution.

22.The next charge levelled against the accused is u/s. 494

IPC. To prove it, the prosecution must prove that; 1)There must be in existence, a valid first marriage between the spouses 2)One of the spouses must marry another person, which is the second marriage, 3)The second marriage should be performed by the spouse, even though the spouse of the first marriage is still alive, without getting divorce, 4)The second marriage must be void because of the subsistence of the first marriage, 5)Then the second marriage becomes an offence, which is known as

Bigamy.

23.In this case on perusal of the evidence of all the witnesses, nobody sure when A1 has married A2 secretly. Simply a bare statement was made by PW1 that on one day when she went to celebrate a festival at her mother’s village, in her absence A1 married A2 secretly and brought to her village and that was inform to her by one Venkappa who is the brother of A1.

Surprisingly during the course of investigation the police did not examine that Venkappa and even during the course of cross examination, she admitted that A1 and A2 marriage was performed in Matralayam. Who performed and in what manner it was performed is nowhere proved and her children are also not aware of the marriage of A1 including the mother of PW1 i.e.,

PW2 is also do not know about the exact ceremonies in the marriage of A1 and A2. So, the charge u/s. 494 IPC is baseless, since not a single witness of prosecution has stated anything about the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 in Matralayam.

Absolutely there is no iota of evidence in that regard also. So that charge is not proved by the prosecution.

24.Then the remaining charge is 324 IPC, which deals for the punishment of; voluntarily causing simply hurt with deadly weapons or means as defined u/s. 324 IPC.

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 8

25.In this case, two instances were deposed by the prosecution witnesses since the entire case is based on the evidence of four important witnesses. Among them PW1 is the defacto complainant and her two daughters were examined including her mother Durgamma. Now on observing and considering their evidence, let me go through the evidence of

PW1. She simply stated that when one Venkappa informed her that A1 married A2 secretly and brought her to village, then she went to the village and enquired with A1 on that A1 beat her and her mother. What type of weapon she was beaten and where she sustained injury, nothing was stated by this witness. Even though she is the one of injured person. Similarly PW1 herself stated that her mother was also beaten. But her mother who was examined as PW3 did not stated that she was beaten by A1.

She stated that about 10 years back, A1 married A2 secretly and due to differences with PW1, A1 beat her. She also did not state that on which part of body sustained injury and what type of weapon was used. She was also not in a position to say that she was also beaten by the accused. Whereas, she stated that A3 tried to beat PW2 who is one of the daughter of PW1. But that witness also denied about her beating. So each witness has created their own story. On careful observation of the deposition of two daughters of PW1, they are examined as PW2 and PW4.

They both stated that A1 beat her mother with stick and due to which she sustained injury. If such was the case, to convict the

A1 for the charge u/s.324 IPC, he is no more, since he died recently due to natural death and case against him was abated.

There is no attribution against A2 and A3 for beating PW1 since

PW1 and PW3 did not stated. Whereas, the two daughters stated that A2 and A3 also beat her mother. But that was not spoken by

PW1 herself. So presence of A2 and A3 at the time of beating of

PW1 by A1 is not state by neither PW1 nor her mother. So there is no averment to convict the A2 and A3 even for the charge u/s.324 IPC.

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 9

26.Apart from it, there is no mention of any injury on forehead of PW1 even though doctor opined that she sustained one cut injury on her fore head but that injury was not spoken by injured herself. Even the doctor also found laceration on the right occipital region of Durgamma PW3, but she herself did not stated that she was beaten by A1. So with regard to the injury sustained by PW1 and her mother, there is no proof and there is no corroboration and even all the witnesses admitted that they did not handed over the police any stick used by A1 for beating

PW1 and even they also admitted that they do not possess any documents to show that A1 and A2 married secretly. So all these vague circumstantial evidence of these witnesses is also not proving the charge u/s. 324 IPC. So all these three charges are not proved.

27.Apart from it, it is to be noted in this case is that the marriage between A1 and PW1 alleged to have been took place about 25 years back. On one hand the accused denying the marriage between A1 and PW1 on the other hand PW1 is not in a position to show that she is legally married wife of A1 and even the circumstantial witnesses did not supported the case of the prosecution to say that A1 is husband of A2 and even that type of evidence is also not sufficient to rise presumption u/s.50 of

Indian Evidence Act, to say that A1 and PW1 are legally married persons. So on one hand the legal marriage was not proved and on the other hand abnormal delay in giving report for about 18 to 20 years there are cordial relationship between wife and husband and they blessed with three children. What are the reasons for differences is not known. More over two stories are created in this case for the motive of this offence. According to the evidence of PW1, she came to know about the marriage of

A1 with A2 through one Venkappa who is the brother of A1 and to enquire about that marriage she went to the village of A1 where she was beaten by A1. Whereas, her two daughters stated that since a marriage alliance was fixed to one of the daughters of PW1 and to ask the financial support of A1, they

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 10

went to that village where the incident occurred. These two different persons are not supported with the case record. Even the contents of the report which was alleged to have been scribed by the police are not proved in a proper way since the contents of that report is not supported with ocular evidence of the witnesses. On that point also the case is not proved. Once the marriage relationship between PW1 and A1 is denied, then the prosecution is said to be failed in proving the ingredients of section 498-A and 494 IPC. Similarly the medical evidence is not supporting the ocular evidence of the injured person and non seizure of stick and non proof of the circumstances of the case since the panch witnesses for the panchanama turned hostile. All these facts clearly shows that the prosecution case is nowhere proved against the accused and even otherwise, if the attribution u/s.324 IPC are attracts only for A1, who is no more and the acts played by A2 and A3 is nowhere spoken by any other witnesses in causing injuries to PW1 and PW3. All these facts clearly shows that the circumstantial witnesses and the evidence of all the witnesses is not in cogent in nature and when there be a legible doubt in the mind of the Judge, the benefit of it shall be given to the accused. Accordingly in this case, A2 and A3 are entitled for the benefit of the doubt.

28.In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s. 494, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248(1) of CrPC. Since A1 already died and the main charge u/s. 498-A IPC, is against A1 only, as such, the case against A1 was already abated. The bail bonds of the accused person shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court, this the 31 st day of July, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

CC.No.322 of 2015 Page . 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:

PW1 Chevitolla Laxmi

PW2 Chevitolla Nagamani

PW3 Vaddera Durgamma

PW4 Chevitolla Anitha

PW5 Abdul Razzak

PW6 Chevitolla Lingappa

PW7 Gujjula Tayappa

PW8 B.Laxman

PW9 Dr.M.Samatha

Defence:

-None - Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:

Ex P1 Report

Ex P2 First Information Report

Ex P3 Crime Details form

Ex P4 Medical Certificate of PW1

Ex P5 Medical Certificate of PW3

Ex P6 161 CrPC Statement of PW6

Ex P7 Signature of PW7 on CDF

Ex P8 Signature of PW8 on CDF

Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARAYANPET.

Friday, this the 19 th day of June, 2020

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

C.C.No. 207 of 2014

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Krishna.

…Complainant.

And

1)Angadi Hanmanthu S/o. Sabanna, age 48 yrs., Caste:Kurva, Occ. Agri.

2)Mallappa @ Mallikarjun S/o. Hanmanthu, age 19 yrs., Caste: Kurva, Occ. Student.

3)Lingamma W/o. Hanmanthu, age 42 yrs., Caste: Kurva, Occ. Agri.

All R/o. Chegunta village of Maganoor Mandal.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.: 448, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri B.Yadaiah A.P.P. Kodangal FAC, Narayanpet on behalf of the State and of Sri S.Narayana, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 8.3.2014, at 1315 hours, the complainant gave police report by alleging that one day prior to that day, one Lingamma quarreled with his wife Sabamma at public tap while collecting the drinking water and in that connection he

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 2 went to Surpanch and informed about the incident and keeping that grudge on 8.3.2014 at 11.30 hours, when he was at the house of one Keerappa, the accused A1 to A3 went there and attacked him with stick and caused the bleeding head injury and when Keerappa tried to settle the matter, the accused also beat him with stick on his head and Lingamma also assaulted him with hands and the said incident was witnessed by one Pendappa and Shekarappa and later he went to the police station. On receipt of the report, the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and sent the injured

LW1 and LW2 to Government hospital and they went to the scene of offence and seized one stick there and later on 21.3.2014, the accused were arrested and they were charge sheeted for committing the offence u/s. 448, 324 r/w. 34 IPC.

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offences u/s. 448, 324 r/w. 34 IPC.

3.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later Sec.239 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted and charges U/Sec. 448, 324 r/w.34 IPC, were framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (9) witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1.

5.After close of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined U.sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence voiced

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 3 against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against them for the offences u/s. 448, 324 r/w. 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of all the injured persons is fully corroborating with the evidence of Medical officer with the evidence of the Investigating officer and there is no delay in

F.I.R., and the injuries are rightly proved and the stick was identified by the injured. All these facts clearly show that the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he prayed the court to convict the accused.

8.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the case is based on improvements and it is a counter blast case since prior to this case the accused in this case already filed a case against these complainant and witnesses for beating A2 and only to counter blast that case, they filed this false case and moreover there is no corroboration between the evidence of injured persons and the evidence of Investigating officer and also Medical officer is not helping the case of prosecution. As such he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of the doubt.

I have gone through the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution.

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 4

9.In this case PW1 (N.Sabenna) is the injured complainant and he entered into witness box and stated that about 4 years back a quarrel took place at public tap infront of his house near road and between LW5 (Sabamma) and A3, then he informed the same to village elders and keeping that grudge, A1 to A3 came to his house and beat him infront of his house and they also beat LW2 (Keerappa) since he tried to rescue him and in the said incident A1 beat him with stick on his back due to which he sustained bleeding injury and A2 and A3 also attack him with stone on his chest. LW2 sustained head injury and the said incident was witness by LW3 (Peddappa) and LW4 (Shekappa) and later he went to police station and gave report and subsequently the police recorded his statement.

10.PW2 (I.Keerappa) is another injured person who deposed that on 8.3.2014 when he was chit chatting with PW1 at his house, then

A1 to A3 came there and attack PW1 with stick and A1 attack PW1 with stick and A3 with hands and in the said incident PW1 sustained bleeding head injury and when he tried to rescue PW1, A2 attack him with same stick due to which he sustained head injury. Then they went to police station and later police sent them to Government hospital, Makthal for treatment and the said incident occurred at 11.00 a.m.

11.Similarly, PW3 (A.Peddappa) is another eye witness and he deposed that about 5 years back a quarrel took place between PW1 and PW2 and A1 to A3 infront of the house of PW1 at 11.30 a.m.

Then he went there and separated them and A1 beat PW1 with stick

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 5 on his chest whereas, A2 beat PW2 with stick on his head. Later he was examined by the police.

12.PW4 (Sabamma) is the circumstantial witness and she deposed that on one day prior to this offence a small quarrel took place between her and A3 at public tap and later it was reported to

Surpanch and on the next day when she went to agricultural lands she was informed that her husband was beaten by the accused and he was treated in Siddappa’s private hospital in Makthal and then she went there.

13.PW5 (K.Shekarappa) is another eye witness who deposed that on 8.3.2014 at 12.30 p.m., he saw A1 quarrel with PW2 on the road in connection with drinking water and A2 attack PW2 with stick on his head due to which he sustained bleeding injury.

14.PW6 (Baswaraj Gouda) and PW7 (Baswaraja Kobbin) panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and they both in one voice stated that about 5 years back they were called by the police to the scene of offence and the police were holding one stick in their hands and they seized it under cover of panchanama but they do not know the contents of that panchanama.

15.PW8 (Dr.Bindu Bargavi) is the Medical officer who treated PW1 and PW2 and according to her evidence, on 8.3.2014 at 1400 hours, she examined PW1 and found abrasion on the anterior of chest and it is a simply injury might have caused with brick and PW1 was

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 6 treated as out patient and on the same day at 1415 hours, she examined PW2 and found one laceration on his scalp and contusion over the sternal region. Both injuries are simple and might have caused sharp or blunt object.

16.PW9 (P.Pochaiah) is S.I. of police who investigated this case and he deposed that on 8.3.2018 at 1350 hours, on receipt of report from PW1 he registered the case and recorded the statements of witnesses and send them to civil hospital for treatment. Then he went to Chegunta village and seized one stick which is MO.1 under cover of panchanama and later recorded the statements of other witnesses and on 21.3.2014, he arrested the accused and sent them to the court for judicial remand and later filed charge sheet against accused.

17.Now, the main charge levelled against the accused is u/s. 324

IPC, and to prove it, prosecution must prove; 1)Voluntarily causing simple hurt, 2)With deadly weapon or means as defined u/s.324

IPC.

18.Keeping these ingredients in background let me discuss the evidence on record.

19.More particularly in this case, it is the contention of learned

A.P.P., that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully corroborating in material aspect. But on perusal of the evidence, since this case is mainly rests on the evidence of PWs1 and 2 who

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 7 are the injured persons, according to the evidence of PW1 on that day the accused A1 beat him with stick on his back, due to which he sustained bleeding injury and A2 and A3 beat him with stone on his chest. Whereas, PW2 stated that A1 beat PW1 with stick and A3 with hands and whereas, PW3 stated that A1 beat PW1 with stick on his chest and PW5 did not stated about beating of PW1 by the accused.

So, if we believe the evidence of PW1, then he was attack by A1 with stick on his chest. But on perusal of the medical report and more particularly the evidence of doctor, in which she opined that the said injury on his chest only might have caused with brick and there is no mention of any use of brick in this case by any of the witnesses. PW1 stated that he was beaten with one stone that stone was not seize by the police and no other witnesses has stated that the accused also use one stone in beating PW1 and while giving evidence the Investigating officer also admitted that except one stick nothing was used in this case. So to prove the charge u/s. 324 IPC, if we believe the evidence of PW1, then according to his evidence a stone was used in causing that injury which was mentioned in medical report but that stone or brick was not seized. So, even though one injury was depose by injury but the crime weapon used is not connecting with the injury on that point the section 324 IPC, with regard to the injury sustained by PW1 is not proved by the prosecution.

20.Now with regard to the injury sustained by LW2 (Keerappa) also there is a contradictory version given by the witnesses and surprisingly if these two witnesses who are injured persons are at

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 8 the same time, why there is a contradiction with regard to sustaining of injury by them and more particularly with regard to the using of stone as stated by PW1 and why it was not stated by PW2 is un- clarified by the prosecution witnesses.

21.On perusal of the medical certificate issued by the doctor, both the witnesses were examined as out patients only and the father names of those persons are not mentioned and surprisingly the

Station House Officer did not mention any crime number on it and if a cognizable offence was registered in time by the police, then why they have not mentioned the crime number on the medical requisition is also untold story of the prosecution which clearly shows that the investigation of a cognizable offence was commenced by the police without issuance of F.I.R., which is hit by u/s.154

Cr.P.C., on that point also there is no plausible explanation by the prosecution.

22.More particularly this is a out come of a counter case filed by the accused in this case against complainant and more particularly grave allegations were also made against A3 that he tried to rape against one woman and a panchayat was also held in that aspect. So when counter cases are filed by both sides, then the prosecution must prove their case with accuracy with regard to the use of weapon and that weapon should connect with injury observed by the doctor as stated by the injured. There is no link in this case with regard to the charge u/s. 324 IPC.

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 9

23.More particularly, according to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, only these three persons were present at the scene of offence apart from other two persons but whereas, other witnesses more particularly, PW5 stated that about (50) persons gathered and whereas, PW1 and PW2 stated that only three persons were there.

So presence of (50) persons is also not supported by the evidence of any other witnesses and with regard to the report given by the complainant, both PW1 and PW2 admitted that they do not know the contents of that report and who has prepared that report is also not clarified by the prosecution since the contents of the report is also contra to the case of the prosecution.

24.With regard to the scene of offence also there is contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. One witness stated that the incident took place at the house of PW2 and another witness stated that it was occurred on the road infront of the house of A1. Then why charge u/s. 448 IPC, is mentioned in the charge sheet when the incident occurred on open road and where is the question of criminal trespass into the house is also unclear by the prosecution.

25.More particularly with regard to the seizure of stick, even the learned defence counsel gave a suggestion to the investigating officer that two sticks alleged to have been used in this case but the

Investigating officer himself is not sure about use of how many sticks in this case. The only stick which was used in this case, all the witnesses admitted that there are no blood marks on it. According

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 10 to the evidence of PW1, he sustained bleeding injury, certainly the stick and his clothes might have stained with blood marks. Then why the police have not found any blood marks on the stick which was used in time, creation of that stick is also cannot be ruled out in this case.

26.More particularly the investigating officer also admitted that he did not seized any blood stained clothes of the injured person, why he has not seized.

27.Apart from it, even though the medical requisition was address to the Government hospital, where the injured was treated, but PW4 admitted that both who is none other than the wife of PW1 and she admitted that both the injured were treated in one private hospital of Doctor Siddappa and that Siddappa was neighter cited as witness nor examined on behalf of prosecution and the doctor who treated the injured has not mentioned any age of injury and particulars of the injured also not mentioned on that requisition and she also admitted that both the injured came on their own to the hospital for treatment and no police escorted.

28.Surprisingly while addressing the medical requisition the investigating officer also did not mention any date of sending the injured to the hospital and in view of the counter case all these ambiguity left over in the prosecution case are fatal to the case of prosecution since these ambiguities are not clarified by the

Investigating Officer and other witnesses in a proper way. On that

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 11 point also the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

29.With regard to the seizure of MO.1 stick, both the panch witnesses for the panchanama admitted that they do not know the contents of that panchanama and by that time when they went to the scene of offence, the police were already holding the stick in their hands and who has shown to the police that the same stick was used is also untold story of the prosecution. On that point also the case of prosecution is doubtful.

30.So to prove the essential ingredients of section 324 IPC, prosecution must prove that the same stick which was seized them is used by the accused in causing injury and the doctor must opine that there is possibility of sustaining said injury with the use of stick.

But in this case while giving evidence, the doctor stated that one brick was used and whereas, injured stated that one stone was used and whereas the I.O., has seized one stick. Which weapon is used in this case is not clarified by any of the witnesses. So the essential ingredients of section 324 IPC are not proved by the prosecution witnesses.

31.The second charge is with regard to section 448 IPC, and in that the prosecution witnesses failed to show the exact location of scene of offence and according to the evidence of PW1 the incident occurred infront of the house and whereas, PW2 stated that the incident occurred at his house and whereas PW4 stated that the

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 12 incident occurred in front of the house on the road. Each witness has created their own story. So criminal trespass into the house of PW2 is nowhere proved by the prosecution. So the charge u/s. 448 IPC, is baseless.

32.Apart from it, the investigation done by the police is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. The investigating officer frankly admitted that on the same day he registered the case against the complainant and others and sent the injured of this case to hospital. If such was the case, then the presence of the accused at the scene of offence is nullified. Whereas, prior to this case already he has sent them to the police station means the accused was not present at the scene of offence. On that point also the ambiguity was not clarified by the prosecution. All these facts clearly show that the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witnesses is unsafe to rely on and this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly they deserve the benefit of doubt in this case.

16.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences

U/s.s.448, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. MO.1 any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 19 th day of June, 2020

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

C.C.No. 207 of 2014 Page 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:

PW1 N.Sabenna

PW2 I.Keerappa

PW3 A.Peddappa

PW4 Sabamma

PW5 K.Shekarappa

PW6 Baswaraj Gouda

PW7 Baswaraja Kobbin

PW8 Dr.Bindu Bargavi

PW9 P.Pochaiah

Defence:

-None -

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:

Ex P1 Complaint

Ex P2 Crime Details Form

Ex P3 Medical Certificate of PW1

Ex P4 Medical Certificate of PW2

Ex P5 First Information Report

Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked

MO.1 Stick

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARAYANPET.

Dated, this Monday, the 6 th day of July, 2020

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

C.C.No. 160 of 2015

Between

State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Krishna.

…Complainant.

And

1)Ediga Babu S/o Narsa Goud, age 35 yrs.

2)Ediga Mahadev S/o. Narsa Goud, age 32 yrs.

3)Ediga Siddappa S/o. Narsa Goud, age 29 yrs.

4)Ediga Keerappa S/o. Narsa Goud, age 22 yrs.

5)Ediga Laingamma W/o. Babu, age 40 yrs.

All Caste; Ediga, Occ. Agri., R/o. Kunsi village of Maganoor Mandal.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.s. 447, 324, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(a) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1932.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri B.Yadaiah A.P.P. Kodangal FAC, Narayanpet on behalf of the State and of Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 4.7.2014 at 1600 hours, the complainant Ediga Mallikarjun gave police report in which he alleged that on that day at 10.00 am., when he along with his family members were in their agricultural lands, A1 to A5 who are his agnates criminally trespassed into his lands and quarreled with him by claiming the entire lands and they also attack him, his wife

Parvathi with sticks and also beat his sister in law Mahadevamma and her daughter Narsingamma with hands due to which he along with his wife received bleeding injuries and that incident was witnessed by one Murali and Venkatappa and later he approached the police for taking action against the accused.

On receipt of his report, the police registered the case and examined the witnesses and send the injured LWs1 and 2 to Makthal

Government Hospital, where the doctor treated them and opined that they sustained simple injuries and after the scene was examined by the police and they seized two sticks MOs1 and 2 from there under cover of panchanama and after arrest of the accused charge sheet was filed against them for committing the offences u/s.447, 324, 323, r/w. 34 IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal

Amendment Act, 1932.

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offences u/s. 447, 324, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(a) of

Criminal Amendment Act, 1932.

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 3

3.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Later Sec.239 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted and charges U/Sec. 447, 324, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(a) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1932, were framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (11) witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MOs 1 and 2.

5.After close of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined U.sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence voiced against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence but marked Ex D1 on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including the injured complainant is fully corroborating with the evidence of investigating officer and the medical officer and he prayed the court to convict the accused.

8.Whereas, the case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that number of civil and criminal cases are filed against these accused by the complainant due to civil disputes and this is one among them and all the false stories are

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 4 created by the complainant without any proof and there is no corroboration in between the evidence of eye witnesses on comparing the evidence of doctor and investigating officer and the recovery of crime weapons are also not proved by the prosecution in a proper way and he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of the doubt.

I have gone through the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution.

9.PW1 (Ediga Mallikarjun) is injured complainant and he deposed that all the accused are his agnates and on 4.7.2014, at 10.30 a.m., when he along with his family members were in their agricultural lands and the accused came there and quarreled with them by claiming the ownership of that land and they attack him, his wife. In that quarrel A1 and A3 beat him with stick on his left hand and left leg and his wife LW2 sustained injury on her left leg and hand and other witnesses saw the incident and they went to police station and gave report. Later the police referred them to hospital for treatment.

10.PW2 (Ediga Parvathi) the wife of injured PW1 also stated that on 4.7.2014 at 10.00 a.m., when she was also working in their lands at Kunsi village all the accused came and quarreled with them by claiming the ownership of those lands and attacked her and her husband with stick and she sustained injury on her left hand and left leg and her husband sustained injury on his left hand and left leg and they filed case against four accused only since all beat them.

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 5

She also stated that she has shown all the injuries to medical officer.

11.PW3 (Mahadevamma) is another eye witness. She deposed that about 4 years back at 9.00 a.m., when they went to their lands, accused came and claimed the ownership and attack PW1 and 2 with sticks and they also beat her and her daughter with hands. But she did not sustain any injury and she did not saw the injuries on PWs1 and 2.

12.PW4 (Narsingamma) is another eye witness. She deposed that on 4.7.2014 at 10.00 a.m., when she was also along with PWs1 to 3 and working in their lands, A1 to A5 came and beat PWs1 and 2 with sticks on the right leg and left hand of PW1 and on the head of PW2 and other accused also beat this witness. But she did not sustain any injury.

13.PW5 (Ediga Murali) is another eye witness. He deposed that about 5 years back at 10 a.m., when he was going to his lands, on the way he saw the accused were quarreling with PW1 at his lands and he saw A1 to A5 attacking PWs1 and 2 with sticks. PW1 sustained injury on his left leg and PW2 sustained injury on her head and right hand.

14.PW6 (Ediga Venkatesh) is another eye witness who also deposed that about 5 years back at 10 a.m., he also saw the quarreling in which A1 to A5 attack with PWs1 and 2 with sticks, due to which PW1 sustained injury on his left land and PW2 sustained injury on her left leg and left hand.

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 6

15.Whereas, PW7 (Vittal) also stated that about 5 years back, when he was at his agricultural lands at 10.30 a.m., he saw the accused beat PW1 and PW2 with sticks in the lands of PW1 and due to which PW2 sustained injury on her left shoulder.

16.Whereas, PW8 (Aligiri Vittal) is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that on 4.7.2014, at 4.45 p.m., he was called by the police into the lands in Sy.No. 537/AA in

Kunsi village and he went there and police prepared one panchanama by noting down the boundaries of the land.

17.PW9 (S.Bunnappa) is another panch witness for the said panchanama. He deposed that on that day the police noted down the boundaries of the scene of offence and also seized two sticks from there.

18.Whereas, PW10 (Bindu Bhargavi) is the Medical Officer who treated the injured PWs1 and 2. According to her evidence on 4.7.2014 at 8.30 p.m., on the requisition of police she examined

PW1 and found bruises on left fore-arm and left leg and swelling on below left scapula. All the injuries are simple and might have caused with stick. On the same day at same time, on examination of PW2, she found one laceration on her left fore arm and bruises on left knee. All the injuries are simple in nature and might have caused with stick.

19.PW11 (B.Pochaiah) is the investigating officer who deposed that on 4.7.2014 at 4. p.m., he received report of PW1 and

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 7 registered the case and issued FIR and recorded the statements of

LWs1 and 2 and sent them to Government hospital Makthal for treatment. Then he went to Kunsi village and prepared the crime details form and seized two sticks. On 10.7.2014, he arrested all the accused and sent them to Court for Judicial remand and after getting medical certificates of the injured in which the doctor opined that they sustained simple injuries, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

20.It is contended by learned A.P.P., that the evidence of all these witnesses is prima-facie establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But on the other hand the learned defence counsel contended that there is no corroboration in between their evidence.

21.The main charge levelled against the accused is u/s. 324 IPC, for causing injuries on PW1 and PW2 with MOs1 and 2 by the accused and also another charge is u/s.323 IPC, for beating the

PWs3 and 4 with hands by the accused.

22.The common ingredients for those offences are as follows;

1)Voluntarily causing simple hurt, 2)With deadly weapon or means as defined u/s. 324 IPC and in case of 323 IPC, there won’t be use of any weapon.

23.Keeping those ingredients in background let me discuss the evidence on record.

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 8

24.First of all, it is contended by the learned defence counsel that there is no corroboration with regard to sustaining of the injuries on the injured person. While going through the statement of witnesses it is true there is no corroboration with regard to the injuries sustained by the injured since with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1, he stated that he sustained injury on his left leg and left hand. The doctor mention swelling on scapula which was not spoken by PW1.

25.Whereas, PW3 did not saw any injury on PWs1 and 2 and PW4 stated that PW1 sustained injury on his right leg and left hand. It is contradicted by PW1. Whereas, PWs5 and 6 stated that PW1 sustained injury on left leg only. They did not state any injury about left hand and PW7 stated that PW1 sustained injury on left leg and thigh. So all these witnesses are not in a position to say exactly on which part of the body of PW1, he sustained injuries.

26.Further more, with regard to the injuries sustained by PW2 who is the wife of PW1, PW2 stated that she sustained injury on her left hand and left leg and those injuries were not observed by PW3.

Whereas, PW4 stated that PW2 sustained bleeding injury on her head. That was not spoken by the injured PW2 herself. PW5 stated that PW2 sustained injury on her head and right hand. PW6 stated that PW2 sustained injury on her left leg and left hand. By improving the evidence, PW7 stated that PW2 sustained injury on her left shoulder. Whereas, the doctor saw injury on PW1 on her left forearm and left knee. All these witnesses again contradicted each other with

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 9 regard to the injury of PW2 also. So on one hand the injury sustained by the injured PWs1 and 2 are not corroborated in material aspect by their evidence and on comparing their evidence with the medical officer there is no corroboration with regard to the injuries sustained by these two injured persons.

27.Further more, the recovery of the sticks, MOs1 and 2 is also creating doubt. Since one of the ingredient to prove Section 324 IPC is that use of deadly weapon. It is alleged in this case that MOs1 and 2 the sticks are used by the accused A1 and A3 in beating them.

Even though all the witnesses stated that A1 to A5 has beat PWs1 and 2, but the injured stated that A1 and A3 alone beat them wtith sticks. The sticks are having a length of 3 feet as mentioned in the panchanama and the contents of that panchanama are also not clearly proved by the prosecution for the reason that PW8 panch witnesses for the said panchanama did not stated about the seizure of stick in his presence. The I.O., also stated that he did not found any blood marks on MOs1 and 2.

28.Whereas, PW2 stated that she sustained bleeding head injury due to beating of that stick. If such was the case, then certainly the investigating officer would have observed some blood marks on the sticks and surprisingly while giving the evidence all the witnesses stated that the sticks are having measurement of one feet only.

29.Therefore, a legible doubt arises that whether the same sticks are placed before the court which were alleged to have been used by

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 10 the accused. Further to contradict this fact, PW2 stated that they themselves handed over the sticks to the police. Then the recovery of those sticks from the scene of offence is creating doubt.

30.Surprisingly in a hurried manner the entire investigation was done by the police. On one day only all the investigation was concluded by the investigating officer. On comparing the evidence of the injured person first their injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 are not corroborating with the evidence of medical officer and investigating officer and the recovery of MOs1 and 2 and use of sticks also not proved in a proper way. So the charge u/s. 324 IPC is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for the benefit of the doubt.

31.With regard to the charge u/s. 323 IPC, the said charge is for beating PW3 and PW4 by the accused with the hands but none of the witnesses including the injured stated that which of the accused has beat them. Admittedly PWs3 and 4 admitted that they did not sustain any injuries and they were not examined by any doctor. So the charge u/s. 323 IPC is also baseless and it is not proved.

32.With regard to the charge u/s. 447 IPC, which deals for the punishment for criminal trespass. On one hand, PW1 stated that he handed over the ownership records of the lands to the police. But the investigating officer has denied the said fact. PW2 and PW3 also admitted that they did not saw while the documents were handed by

PW1 to the police. Not a single piece of document is placed before

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 11 the court to show the ownership of PW1 over that land. It was admitted by witnesses that they also filed civil suit which is pending and once the civil suits are pending for the disputed lands, there won’t be any proof of criminal trespass since the deciding of the title is duty of the Civil Court. So with regard to the section 447 IPC, absolutely there is no iota of evidence.

33.Similarly, with regard to the charge u/s. 7(1)(a) of Criminal

Amendment Act, there is no proof placed before the court. So all these charges are not proved by the prosecution in a proper way.

34.Apart from it, the another point to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses that cases and counter cases are filed between parties since long time and there is a delay in giving report that was not properly explained by any of the witnesses and PW1 himself admitted that he did not written that report which was created by the police. So the contents of the report are also not explained by the prosecution. Even not a single police man has escorted the injured to the hospital. So, the bruises which are simple injuries are not properly safeguarded by the police after the commission of the offence till the examination of the doctor and surprisingly the doctor also admitted that she did not mention the age of injury and the identification marks of PW1 in her report. All these facts clearly shows that there is no formidable evidence to convict the accused and in view of the scant evidence of all the witnesses due to non corroboration of the evidence of these witnesses in connection with the injury sustained by the injured, this

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 12 court is of the view that it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of these witnesses and this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

35.Moreover, PW2 also admitted that they filed case against four accused only. Whereas, five accused were charge sheeted in this case and not a single witness is in a position to say the specific overacts of the each of the accused and on that point also the case of the prosecution fails.

16.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences

U/s. 447, 324, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec.7(1)(a) of Criminal

Amendment Act, 1932, accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. M.Os1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 6 th day of July, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:

PW1 Ediga Mallikarjun

PW2 Ediga Parvathi

PW3 Mahadevamma

PW4 Narsingamma

PW5 Ediga Murali

C.C.No. 160 of 2015 Page 13

PW6 Ediga Venkatesh

PW7 Vittal

PW8 Aligiri Vittal

PW9 S.Bunnappa

PW10 Bindu Bhargavi

PW11 B.Pochaiah

Defence:

-None -

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:

Ex P1 Report

Ex P2 Crime Details form

Ex P3 Medical Certificate of PW1

Ex P4 Medical Certificate of PW2

Ex P5 First Information Report

Defence:

Ex D1 A portion marked in 161 CrPC statement of PW7

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Stick

M.O.2: Stick

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARAYANPET.

Dated Monday, this the 6 th day of July, 2020

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014

Between State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Utkoor.

…Complainant.

And

1)Chanti Kashappa S/o. Sayappa, age 32 yrs., Caste: Boya, Occ. Agri.

2)Chanti Hanmanthu S/o. Kashappa, age 60 yrs., Caste: Boya, Occ. Agri.

3)Nadipi Hanmanthu S/o. Kashappa, age 45 yrs., Caste: Boya, Occ. Agri.

4)Chanti Ramu @ Ramanjaneyulu S/o. Chanti Pedda Hanmanthu, age 25 yrs., Caste: Boya, Occ. Agri.

5)Ravi S/o. Ammanna, age 20 yrs., Caste; Boya, Occ. Agri.

6)Shanker S/o. Nadipi Hanmanthu, age 22 yrs., Caste; Boya, Occ. Agri.

7)Bannappa S/o,. Sayappa, age 38 yrs., Boya, Agri.

8)Srinu S/o. Pedda Hanmanthu, age 26 yrs., Caste: Boya, Occ. Agri.

All are R/o. Peddaporla village of Utkoor Mandal.

...Accused.

Offences u/s.s: 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri B.Yadaiah A.P.P. Kodangal FAC, Narayanpet on behalf of the State and of Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2014 at 11.30 a.m., the complainant Vaakiti Kurumoorthy gave a police report in which he alleged that on the same day when he along with his son and his son in law and his wife went to their agricultural lands with one tractor belongs to Narasimulu, at about 8.00 a.m., when they started ploughing the land, A1 to A8 along with two others criminally trespassed in their lands and abused in filthy language and also claimed the ownership of the lands and attached them with sticks and stones and caused bleeding injuries to him and also his son, son in law. The accused also beat the tractor driver Narasimulu and he also sustained injury and the accused also damaged the lights of the tractor and removed the air from the tyres and later, he went to the police station for taking action.

Basing on the report, police registered the case in Cr.No.59/14, examined the witnesses, sent the injured to Government hospital,

Narayanpet for treatment and immediately went to the scene of offence and in the presence of mediators they drawn rough sketch of the scene and examined the other witnesses and doctor who treated the injured persons opined that the complainant only sustained grievous injuries and others sustained simple injuries and after elaborate investigation the police filed charge sheet against A1 to A8 for committing the offences u/s. 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 r/w.149 of IPC, be deleting two accused persons by name; Chanti

Hanmannna S/o. Kashappa and Chanti Shanker S/o. Ramulu, since their involvement was not established while examining the witnesses.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 3

2.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused for the offences u/s. 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC.

3.On appearance of A1 to A8, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Later Sec.239 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted and charges U/Sec. 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC, were framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined (6) witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

5.After close of prosecution side evidence the accused were examined U.sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence voiced against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt?

7.The learned A.P.P., argued that the evidence of injured witnesses is fully corroborating in material aspects and he prayed the court to convict the accused.

8.The case of the accused is one of total denial. The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of injured witnesses is based on the improvements and there is no corroboration between their evidence and the injuries sustained by the injured are also not

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 4 proved by them and all the other ingredients of offences are also not spoken by the witnesses and the Medical Officer and Investigating

Officer also did not came to the court inspite of giving so many adjournments for which the material records are also not proved by the prosecution. As such he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving the benefit of the doubt.

I have gone through the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution.

9.PW1 (V.Kururmoorthy) is the injured complainant. He deposed that on 29.6.2014, when he was ploughing the land along with LW2

Varender and LW4 Narasimulu, at about 8.00 a.m., A1 to A3, A5 and

A8 came and obstructed him by claiming the ownership of the land and attacked him with stones and sticks and they also beat LWs2 and 4. In that scuffle he sustained head injury and also injuries all over his body and the other persons also sustained injuries. Then he went to the police station and gave report where the police sent him to hospital for treatment.

10.PW2 (Varender) is another injured. He also deposed that on 29.6.2014 at 8.00 a.m., A1 to A8 came and attacked them with stones and sticks and he sustained head injury and also injuries all over his body. Then they went to the police station.

11.PW3 (V.Krishna) is another injured who stated that on that day in that attack by A1 to A8, he sustained injuries on his left hand and other persons also sustained injuries and they went to police station.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 5

12.PW4 (Narasimulu) is another witness. He deposed that on 29.6.2014, at 8.00 a.m., he went to the lands of PW1 along with his tractor for ploughing the land. Then, A1 to A8 came there and stopped the work and they quarreled with PW1 and beat him with stone and sticks and they also beat PW2 and PW3 and they also pushed LW5 (V.Manemma) and they also beat him due to which he sustained injuries on his back and his tractor head lights, parking lights and lamps were also damaged by the accused and the accused also removed air from the tyres of the tractor and pelted stones on it and he was treated in the hospital.

13.PW5 (V.Manemma) is eye witness and wife of PW1. She deposed that about 4 years back when she was ploughing the lands,

A1 to A7 came and abused them in filthy language by calming the ownership of the lands and pelted stones and also beat PW1 with stones and sticks and they also beat PW3, due to which they sustained injury on his shoulder, later the accused also damaged tractor lights with sticks and stones.

14.PW6 (Bala Swamy) is the panch witness for scene of offence.

He deposed that about 4 years back, at 12 noon in his presence the police prepared panchanama for the scene of offence and he signed on it.

15.It is pertinent to mention here that even this matter is pertaining to the year 2014 number of adjournments were given but, the police could not trace out the addresses of the doctor who treated the injured and similarly, the Investigating Officer also did

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 6 not came and hence after taking cogent steps their evidence was closed by the court.

16.Now, coming to the arguments, the learned A.P.P., stated that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is sufficient to prove their case but, it was counter attack by the learned defence counsel who argued that there is no corroboration between the evidence of witnesses.

17.The main charge levelled against the accused is u/s. 326, 324

IPC. There are common ingredients to both the offences except grievous injury in case of 326 IPC and simple injury in case of 324

IPC and the prosecution must prove voluntarily attack with deadly weapons by causing simple and grievous injuries.

18.To prove it, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of injured witnesses.

16.It is settled law that the evidence of injured witnesses carries more weight if it inspires confidence of the court.

17.It is a civil dispute case. Since long time the lands in

Sy.No.201 were disputed by these parties who belongs to different community.

18.On perusal of the evidence of PW1, he stated that on that day

A1 to A3 and A5 and A8 came and obstructed them and in that scuffle he sustained injury on his head and all over his body. In the cross examination, he admitted that one police constable has scribed

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 7 the report and he simply signed on it. That police constable who scribed the report is not cited as witness or examined on behalf of prosecution.

19.More particularly the evidence of PWs2 and 3 also stated that they sustained injuries on all over their bodies. But except finding one injury, the doctor did not mention any other injuries on these injured persons. To clarify those ambiguous circumstances, the doctor was not examined. Even it was alleged by the witnesses that they were beaten with stones and sticks and in fact PW2 also stated that they have shown the weapons used in the commission of offence to the police. Then what are the reasons for not seizing any sticks or stones even though the police has visited the scene on the same day of offence immediately after registering the case. It clearly shows that there is no incriminating material by way of weapons i.e., sticks and stones available at the scene of offence.

20.Further it was alleged by the prosecution witnesses that the tractor of LW4 was also damaged by the accused and they broken the lights and removed the air from the tyres of the tractors. If such is the case, then why the availability of the damaged tractor was not mentioned at the scene in the panchanama by the police who visited the scene of offence after 2 or 3 hours of the incident. So either the tractor was not there and the police has prepared the report by sitting in the police station itself without visiting the scene. These two options were not clarified due to non examination of the

Investigating Officer.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 8

21.Moreover, all the injured persons including PW3 and PW4, they also admitted that they cannot say who beat them with sticks and stones and when the injured themselves are not in a position to say which of the accused attacked them, then how the acquisition can be levelled against A1 to A8.

22.More particularly, in the circumstances where two accused were deleted by the police during their investigation since their involvement is not established when the witnesses were examined.

There is a possibility of inflicting injuries by the accused who was not mentioned in the charge sheet and there is no proof placed by the court that how many sticks and how many stones are used in this case. When the injured has sustained injury on the head why the blood stained clothes were not seized by the police are also unexplained by them.

23.More particularly, PW3 also admitted that no third person was present at the time of incident. Then eye witnessing the incident by some other persons is also creating doubt. On one hand the injuries sustained by the injured were not proved due to non examination of doctor and the police did not seize any stones and stones from the scene. As such, neighter the charge u/s. 326 IPC nor 324 IPC are said to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.Moreover, if the injured PW1 was underwent treatment in the hospital, the doctor who treated him was not cited as witness to prove the grievous nature of the injury on PW1. So, the charge u/s.326 IPC is also not proved. No X-ray report, no scan report is

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 9 filed. One cut injury was mentioned in the medical report and even the time of examination of all the injured and the age of injuries are not mentioned in all the medical reports of the injured and to clarify them the Medical Officer was not brought to the court and even there is no mention of any presence of deadly weapon in the panchanama for the scene of offence panchanama and all the important documents were not proved by the prosecution due to non examination of the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer and non identifying of the assailants by the injured persons, the charge levelled against the accused is said to be not proved.

25.Since all the witnesses did not specifically stated about the presence of all the (8) accused and even during the course of investigation itself the police has deleted two persons and non of the prosecution witnesses has specifically stated which of the accused carries the deadly weapons and specific overt acts of each of the accused are also not spoken by the prosecution witnesses as such the charges u/s. 147 and 148 IPC, are not proved by them beyond all reasonable doubt. More particularly in view of the non seizure of sticks and stones the said charge also baseless and not proved by the prosecution in a proper way.

26.Further, absolutely none of the prosecution witnesses have in a position to say about the exact strength of accused and the weapons possessed by them. Moreover, there is no proof placed

before the court about the ownership of the land by PW1. As such,

the charge u/s. 447 IPC, is also not established by them.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 10

27.As far as the charge u/s. 427 IPC, the mischief caused by the accused to the tractor of LW4 is not proved for the mere reason that the presence of the tractor at the scene of offence was not established, not mentioned in the scene panchanama and even the panch witness for the said panchanama also did not stated about the presence of that tractor and he also admitted that he do not know whether any sketch was drawn at the scene panchanama and actually he do not know the contents of the scene panchanama, indirectly he turned hostile. So, the circumstances of the case are also not established by the prosecution and the injuries sustained by the injured are also not established and the charge u/s. 427 IPC is no where proved by the prosecution.

28.With regard to the charge u/s. 504 IPC, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused.

29.Moreover, the examination of witnesses by the police is also doubtful since, the witnesses themselves are not sure about what was written in their 161 CrPC, statements recorded by the police and the presence of other witnesses is also creating doubt.

30.The scene panch also admitted that none of them has stated about the actual place where the incident occurred. All these facts more particularly non proof of injuries sustained by the injured is clearly shows that the scant evidence of prosecution witnesses is unsafe to rely on and it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

C.C.No. 325 of 2014 Page 11

31.In the result, A1 to A8 are found not guilty for the offences

U/s. 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 6 th day of July, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:

PW1 Kurmurthy PW2 Varender PW3 Kistappa PW4 Narsimulu PW5 Manemma PW6 Bala Swamy

Defence:

-None - Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

Ex P1 Report Ex P2 Crime details form

Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet

O.S.No. 132 of 2019 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARAYANPET.

Thursday, this the 18th day of June, 2020

Present: Sri. Mohd Abdul Khaleel, Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

O.S.No. 132 of 2019

Between Smt. G. Sunitha W/o. G.Mahipalreddy, age 28 yrs., Occ. Household, r/o.H.No.18-88/1, Raddynagar, Makthal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

… Plaintiff

And

1.R.Rajareddy S/o. R.Venkatreddy, age 27 yrs., Occ.Agri, R/o.#214-13, Basaveswara Colony, Makthal Mandal.

2.B.Narasimlu S/o. B.Savarappa, age 26 yrs., Occ. Agri, R/o.#21-132, Nandini Nagar, Makthal Mandal.

... Defendants

Claim: Suit is filed U/s. 26 & O.7 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC., for perpetual injunction against the defendants their men agents and servants from causing the illegal interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit open plot framed part in the land bearing Sy.No.94/E admeasuring 77.77 Sq. Yards situated at Kamathpulmamidi Shivar of Makthal Mandal.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the Sri. Mallikarjun, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants remained exparte, having stood over for determination this day, the court delivered following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants from causing the illegal interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit open plot framed part in the land bearing Sy.No.94/E admeasuring 77.77 Sq. Yards situated at Kamathpulmamidi Shivar of Makthal

Mandal.

O.S.No. 132 of 2019 Page 2

1.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the open plot part of the land bearing Sy.No.94/E admeasuring 77.77 Sq. yards situated at Makthal village which is suit schedule property as the same has been purchased by the plaintiff from her vendor Smt.T.Vaani through registered sale deed document No.85 of 2007 and since then she is enjoying the suit property as absolute owner. It is further averred that the plaintiff applied for permission before

Grampanchayat Makthal for construction of a house and also renewed the same in the year 2019 and got sanctioned the house loan by depositing the title deed.

2.It is further stated that while the plaintiff has started with construction work by cleaning the land, the defendants 1 and 2 who are strangers and are no way concern with the schedule land started interference and tried to obstruct over the suit land on the pretext that they are prepared for purchase of the said suit land from her vendor and finally on 11.10.2019 the defendants made attempt to dispossession, but the plaintiff with great difficulty resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and finally approached the court by filling the suit for relief of perpetual injunction.

3.On receipt of the suit summons, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear the court and failed to file any written statement within the stipulated time. As such defendants were set exparte and the matter was preceded against them.

4.Now the point for determination is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW1 and got examined Exs. A1 and A2.

6.After closure of the plaintiff evidence, arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

O.S.No. 132 of 2019 Page 3

7.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff by examining plaintiff as PW1 that the plaintiff is able to prove her case beyond all probabilities and also the contents of

Exs.A1 and A2 are prima-facie shows the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and even the threat of her dispossession was also clearly proved by the plaintiff and the injury likely to be sustained by her is also primafacie established. As such she prayed to decree the suit.

8.On perusal of the chief affidavit of the plaintiff, the contents of Exs.A1 and A2 are in tuned with the contention of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed and Ex.A2 Original Grampanchayat permission along with approved plan which is still in force, primafacie shows the possession of the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land and also balance of convenience through the said documents.

9.All the above documents prima-facie show that the plaintiff is the rightful owner over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and it is also averred that defendants are tried to dispossess him which clearly shows that there is eminent danger of dispossession and irreparable loss of the plaintiff if she is not protected by the court. So the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Since the cause of action arose on 11.10.2019, the suit is filed within limitation and it is also properly valued.

10.So the contents of Exs. A1 and A2 are proved beyond all probabilities and to rebut it the defendants did not adduced any evidence and even did not filed any written statement and did not appeared before the court which clearly goes to show that indirectly defendants admitting the claim of the plaintiff.

11.The unchallenged evidence of PW1 clubbed with documents clinchingly proves the claim of the plaintiff beyond all probabilities and it can be said that the defendants can be restrained from their illegal interference over the suit schedule lands.

O.S.No. 132 of 2019 Page 4

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour plaintiff against the defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from their interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of June-2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Plaintiff:

PW1 Smt.G.Sunitha

Defendant/s:

-None-

Exhibits Marked For

Plaintiff:

Ex A1 is the certified copy of Regd. Sale deed

Ex A2 is the original GP permission with plan

Defendant/s:

-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.