1FAIR COPY
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS –
CUM - JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: SIDHOUT
Present:- Sri N.Rajasekar,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sidhout
Friday, the 19 th day of June, 2020.
C.C.No. 165 of 2019
State represented by the Sub Inspector of of Police, Vontimitta P.S.
.. Complainant ..
-Versus-
Shaik Jabiulla, S/o Karimulla, Age: 22 years, D.No.2/25, Temple street, Vontimitta town and mandal, registered of motor cycle bearing NO.AP04BN4677
.. Accused ..
This case is coming on 4.6.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of
Sri.B.Ramadasu, Advocate for the accused and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vontimitta Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.No.268/2018, U/Secs.353,323,279,506 IPC and
Sec.184 of M.V.Act against accused alleging as follows :
2.The prosecution case is in nutshell:
One S.P.Ramthu bash/L.W1 has been working as police constable at Vontimitta P.S. On 22.2.2019, as per the directions of Sub-Inspector, vontimitta (J.Danunjayudu/L.W6), while L.W1 has been discharging his officials duties as constable at Sri Kondanda Ramaswamy temple,
Vontimitta and controlling traffic regulations at the said premises, while so, at around 7.00 p.m., accused being the rider and one K.Sai
Subbramanyam/L.W5 being pillion rider of a motor cycle bearing 2FAIR COPY registered No.AP04 BN 4677 came there in a rash manner with high speed and applied sudden brake and thereby caused annoyance to the devotees at temple premises. On noticing such acts of accused, L.W1 being police constable and in his official capacity, with a view to discharge his legitimate duties tried to stop the acts of accused and demanded accused not to ride motor cycle in a rash manner for which accused grew wild and questioned the authority of L.W1 and took altercation and threatened L.W1 with dire consequences to beat and also caught hold the uniform collar (shirt collar) of L.W1 and pushed him aside questioning his authority in stopping his acts. Later L.W1 enquired the identity and address particulars of accused and submitted a special report against him to L.W6 in turn L.W6 registered a case in
Cr.No.30/2019 Under Sections 353,323,506,279 IPC and Sec.184 of
M.V.Act and took up investigation into the matter and examined and recorded the statements of L.W1 and eye witnesses namely
A.Manohar/L.W2, M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy/L.W3, T.Vinod/L.W4 (temple security guards) and also L.W5 and visited scene, drew rough sketch and thus found prima facie case against accused and later on 23.2.2019 at 11.00 a.m, L.W6 arrested accused and seized motor bike of accused under cover of detailed police proceedings and then produced before this court and sent him to judicial custody. Later rest of the investigation is taken up by K.Aswini, S.I of Police/L.W7 Vontimitta and verified the investigation has done by L.W6 and found it on correct lines and completed investigation and laid charge-sheet.
3.Cognizance of offence was taken U/Secs.353,323,506,279
IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act.
4.On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3FAIR COPY
5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Secs.353,323,506,279 IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act stated substance of accusation, explained and read over its contents to accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
6.To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O-1. The evidence of one K.Sai
Subramanyam/L.W5 was closed by this court as prosecution filed a memo stating that he had been to abroad for eking out livelihood and securing his presence not possible. Whereas the evidence of L.W7
K.Aswini, S.I of Police was closed by this court as prosecution failed to secure her presence despite of granting sufficient time and opportunity.
Accordingly prosecution side evidence was closed.
7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material lying in prosecution witnesses for which accused sated everything as false and incorrect and reported no defence witnesses on his side.
Accordingly, defence side evidence was also closed.
8.I have heard arguments of learned A.P.P., and also learned advocate for accused.
9.The learned A.P.P for state argued that the evidence both oral and document adduced by prosecution establishes the guilt of accused as he committed assault against P.W1 and deterred him from performing his legitimate duties as public servant/police constable and also intimidated him from discharging his official duties and accused drove his motor bike/M.O-1 in rash manner at a public place i.e., at temple premises and thus accused is punishable for the offences charged.
4FAIR COPY
10.Per contra, the learned advocate for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit alleged offence and he was falsely implicated at the instance de-facto complainant/P.W1 without any just cause and that omissions in Ex.P1 report regarding date of commission and also G.D/Ex.P2 extract entry was ambiguous regarding the official duties alleged to have performed by P.W1 at the time of alleged commission and rough sketch also not clear and specific regarding actual scene of offence and that no ingredients were on record to establish that accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W1 and even the independent witnesses P.W2 to 4 on record not corroborated the version of the De-facto complainant and
IO’s/P.W5 evidence also very inconsistent and thus prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt, hence prayed to extend benefit of doubt and acquit accused from the offence charged.
11.Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for
the offence punishable U/Secs.353,323,506,279 IPC and Sec.184
of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?
12.It is the case of prosecution that on 22.2.2019 at about 7.00 p.m, accused being the rider of a M.O-1 motor bike drove it in a rash and dangerous manner with high speed and applied sudden brake as to endanger human life at Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple; and also deterred P.W1 from discharging of his legitimate duties as police constable/public servant who has been looking after traffic regulations at the temple premises; and also voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W1 by pushing him aside by holding the uniform collar of P.W1 and also threatened P.W1 with dire consequences to see his end if he questioned 5FAIR COPY his acts; and such acts of accused punishable U/Secs.279,353,323,506
IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act
13.To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as five witnesses P.W1 to 5. PW1 is de-facto complainant/public servant/police constable; PW2 to 4 are ocular witnesses for the incident/galata happened and P.W5 is investigating officer.
14.The defence no where questioned about the employment of the de-facto complainant/P.W1 who said to have been working as a police constable at Vontimitta Police Station. Further the defence did not deny about the duties of P.W1 as police constable at Vontimitta police station as on the date of alleged commission. If it is so, the prosecution has no need to prove the fact that P.W1 is public servant. The word public servant defined under section 21 of Indian Penal Code and a police constable admittedly a public servant as per clause (8) of Sec.21 which runs as follows: “Every Officer of the Government whose
duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give
information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to
protect the public confinement”. Thus this court has no hesitation to hold that P.W1 is herein is a public servant falls under section 21 (8) of
I.P.C.
15.The de-facto complainant i.e., P.W1 who set criminal law into motion deposed that on 22.2.2019 at about 5.00 p.m, S.I Vontimitta i.e.,
P.W5 deputed him for traffic regulation duties at Sri Konda Ramaswamy temple, Vontimitta as he visited said temple and while discharging his such duties, while so, at about 7.00 p.m when he reached main gate of temple for discharging such duties, while so, accused being the rider of
M.O-1 motor cycle came there with an high speed and applied sudden brake at temple premises and such act caused nuisance to the pilgrims 6FAIR COPY and on noticing the same, he tried to stop the movement of accused/motorcyclist while he has been driving his M.O-1 from ratham sandu/lane but accused overtook him and stopped his motorcycle/M.O-1 at mada veedi/street (at temple premises). P.W1 further deposed that then he approached accused and took his bike key and questioned him about his highhanded and rash driving of motorcycle at the temple premises for which accused and another/pillion rider (L.W5 K.Sai
Subramanyam) got down and then accused shouted against him as he (P.W1) stopped the motorcycle. P.W1 furthermore deposed that accused questioned his authority in restraining his movement (bike riding) and uttered that he can ride bike as he wishes and also uttered “ ee bandi neevuemaina koni icchava, emaina accident chestey nannu adagali, neeku aape hakku ledhu” and also threatened him with loud voice that he is local and can do anything whereas pillion rider/L.W5 requested (P.W1) him seeking apologies for the acts of accused as accused did such acts (rash driving) in view of his birthday. P.W1 further deposed that even L.W5 also admonished accused as he gave bike key to L.W5 but accused grew wild against L.W5 for supporting him (P.W1) as L.W5 left scene. P.W1 further deposed that P.W’s 2 to 4 who present at temple premises came to scene as he informed such acts of accused to them but accused grew wild against him and caught hold his uniform collar and also abused him in an unparliamentary language besides pushing him aside. P.W1 further deposed that P.W2 to 4 also admonished accused, as accused left scene with a threatening gesture with his eyes; and later he got enquired about the identity and other details/particulars of accused and submitted report/Ex.P1 to S.I/P.W5 on the same day seeking to take necessary action.
16.This court perused Ex.P1 report (of P.W1) and found which 7FAIR COPY contents also on the same lines of oral evidence of P.W1 on record regarding the alleged overt acts of accused. Further this court perused the evidence of ocular witness/P.W2 who said to be the security guard at
Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple and he deposed that on 22.2.2019 at about 6.30 p.m to 7.30 p.m, one A.Manohar/P.W4 and himself have been discharging their legitimate duties as security guards at south and east gate of temple respectively, while so, some pilgrims came and informed an altercation being taken place between a police constable and accused as P.W4 and himself rushed to scene and dispersed the crowd. Whereas
P.W4 denied the evidence of P.W2 (discussed supra) and turned down prosecution version in toto (in chief-examination). P.W2 also could not implicate accused into the alleged charge in his chief-examination.
However, prosecution cross-examined P.W2 and 4, and elicited crucial statements in their favor. P.W2 in cross-examination (by A.P.P) stated “I came to know the altercation between police constable/P.W1 and accused; and the same took place as P.W1 in the capacity of police constable questioned the rash act of accused in driving motorcycle at temple premises”. Further A.P.P elicited from the mouth of P.W2 that
P.W1 was wearing uniform at the time of incident and also presence of number of devotees at scene of offence; and accused is resident of
Vontimitta. P.W4 also during cross-examination (by A.P.P) stated that “ I came to know such galata happened at temple premises at 7.00 p.m. It is true that temple was crowed with pilgrims at 7.00 p.m. It is true that no individual can drive his vehicle in rash and with high speed in mada veedhi of temple premises. It is true that local police used to attend bandobust duties at 7.00 p.m at temple premises. I came to know that accused drove his motorcycle in rash manner at temple premises as
P.W1 questioned such acts of accused for which accused pushed P.W1 8FAIR COPY aside”. Whereas P.W3 who said to be other ocular witness deposed that he is working as temple assistant and on 22.2.2019 between 6.00 p.m., to 7.00 p.m., after having snacks, when he reached in front of temple, noticed an altercation between P.W1 and accused and he came to know such altercation took place for the reason that accused drove his motorcycle in rash manner at temple premises and P.W1 questioned such act. Further P.W3 during cross-examination (by A.P.P) stated that accused was the rider of a pulsar motorcycle and one
K.Subramanyam/L.W5 was pillion rider and due to the rash driving of motorcycle by accused, the devotees who present at scene got afraid of.
P.W3 furthermore stated (cross-examination by A.P.P) that since accused drove motorcycle in rash manner as P.W1 in the capacity of constable stopped the accused motorcyclist and also demanded accused not to ride motorcycle in rash manner.
17.Thus, on careful examination and scrutiny of the oral evidence of P.W1 to 4 on record, prima faice, it appears that accused being motorcyclist drove his motorbike/M.O-1 at temple premises in rash manner with high speed as to endanger human life at relevant time and such act of accused was questioned by P.W1 in his official capacity while discharging his duties as police constable and thus accused grew wild against him and deterred P.W1 from discharging his official duties and also threatened P.W1 and also pushed him aside by caught holding uniform collar. Although P.Ws 2 to 4 cited as ocular witnesses by the prosecution but their evidence on record goes to show that they are very inconsistent and not clear about witnessing such physical overt acts of accused against P.W1. P.W2 to 4 at first instance, turned down the prosecution story (in their respective chief-examination), however, the prosecution by cross-examining them successfully elicited the facts 9FAIR COPY about the alleged incident happened at the temple premises and the altercation took place between P.W1 and accused at relevant time.
18.Whereas the defence no where denied about the presence of
P.Ws2 to 4 who said to be the workmen-cum-employees at temple discharging their official duties. Although P.W2 to 4 did not state specifically that they have directly witnessed the galata/incident happened but they are very clear, specific and consistent about the presence of accused at temple premises and altercation took place between accused on one side and P.W1/police constable on the other side for the reason that P.W1 questioned the rash driving of accused in driving motor cycle at temple premises. Thus prima facie, the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W1 to 4 on record goes to show that alleged incident happened at relevant time.
19. Further the defence no where denied about the fact M.O-1/ motorcycle stands in the name of one S.Karimulla who has got interim custody of said vehicle during pending disposal of trial (vide Orders in
Crl.M.P.No.827/2019 dt:4.6.2019). The said S.Karimulla is none other
than father of accused. Further the defence counsel no where denied about the fact that accused is the native of Vontimitta. It is not the case of defence that accused never drove motorcycle/M.O-1 at temple premises and he never put any suggestions to any of the witnesses P.W1 to 4 denying that accused drove motorbike/M.O-1. It is the case of defence that “while accused and his friends chit-chatting near to his house in view of his birthday and at that time while P.W1 has passing through street, questioned accused about chit-chatting across the road and thereby manhandled accused as accused reported the incident to local elders and thereby P.W1 anticipated that local elders may lodge a case against him as such to defend himself, P.W1 lodged this case 10FAIR COPY against accused”. Such defence taken by accused emphatically denied by P.W1 during cross-examination (when suggested). Moreover, during examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused could not state or take any such plea towards his defence. Further accused could not examine any local elders to whom he reported the alleged acts of
P.W1 or examine any of his friends with whom he was chit-chatting on the date of incident. If it is so, it can be inferred that such plea taken by defence is utter false and set up towards defence but not otherwise.
20.The learned defence counsel cross-examined P.W1 at length and elicited about omissions made by P.W1 in his report with respect to date of alleged incident, at what time he commenced duty at the temple premises, exact time when he visited temple for discharging his official duties and also the improvements (made by P.W1 in his chief- examination) which could not whisper by him in his Ex.P1 report or in
F.I.R. It is settled proposition of law that “ FIR or the report of de-facto complainant is not an encyclopedia which would contain all the facts in connection with a crime”. The defence counsel during cross-examination of P.W1, put suggestions making counter allegations against P.W1’s conduct and habit in lodging false cases against private individuals but to that effect, accused could not adduce any evidence. Hence, such mere allegations leveled against P.W1 cannot be looked into. P.W1 in his chief-examination stated that accused entered temple premises from ratham sandu/lane and drove M.O-1 motorcycle in rash manner at temple premises and overtook him and moved forward for about 40 feet and stopped bike at madaa street. During cross-examination, P.W1 admitted that he could not whisper such fact in his Ex.P1 or at the time of his examination under Sec.161 (3) of Cr.P.C by IO/P.W5. Such statement made by P.W1 is only an improvement which would no way 11FAIR COPY affect the case of prosecution since the case of prosecution is that act of accused is so rash which would likely endanger human life and such act occurred at temple premises. It is not necessary from which end accused entered temple premises and where he stopped the vehicle.
Further it is not necessary to discuss in deep regarding the exact place of altercation when the case of prosecution is that such mischief/wrong committed by accused in the premises of temple and to that effect P.Ws1 evidence is very assertive. Further P.Ws2 to 4 also emphatically stated (in cross-examination by A.P.P) about such altercation took place between P.W1 and accused regarding driving of motorcycle by accused in temple premises. Admittedly, there is slight inconsistency between the exact place of scene of offence in the oral evidence of P.W1 with that of rough sketch drew by the I.O/P.W5. P.W1 in his chief-examination stated that accused stopped motorbike/M.O-1 at madaa street and then he questioned accused about such acts. Whereas the rough sketch drew by I.O/P.W5 goes to show that incident happened at south-east corner in front of the temple. In rough sketch, madaa street shown on either side of temple whereas scene of offence depicted on south-east corner. If it is so, such slight inconsistency regarding exact scene of offence in P.W1’s oral evidence would no way fatal when prosecution case is very clear and specific about the incident. The learned defence counsel did not put any question to other witnesses P.W2 to 4 and elicit any inconsistent statements regarding the place of scene of offence or about the incident happened. Thus the rough sketch drew by IO under Ex.P5 would be true and correct and defence failed to create any doubts about the same.
Thus, the oral evidence adduced by prosecution on record is very clear, specific and consistent regarding the incident happened. By examining
P.W1 to 4, the prosecution is able to establish the facts that accused 12FAIR COPY drove his motorbike/M.O1 in a manner so rash as to endanger human life at Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple premises, Vontimitta. Further P.W2 to 4 although at first instance during chief-examination kept mum regarding incident but during cross-examination by A.P.P, they were specific and clear about the incident happened. Although, P.W2 to 4 could not whisper and support the prosecution case at first instance in their chief-examination would no way create any doubtful circumstances about their presence at temple premises at the time of incident. The prosecution, in accordance with law, got permission and cross-examined
P.W2 to 4 and elicited crucial facts (discussed supra) from their mouth. It is not the case of defence that P.w2 to 4 are not discharging their duties at temple on the date of alleged incident. If it is so, the inconsistent stand of P.W2 to 4 in their chief-examination liable to be ignored and would no way affect the case of prosecution.
21. Further, admittedly P.W1 is a police constable and to establish that he is performing his legitimate duties at temple premises at the time of commission by accused, the prosecution relied upon Ex.P2 which is extract of general diary entry maintained at Vontimitta police station. This court keenly examined Ex.P2 contents and found that at about 5.00 p.m on 22.2.2019, P.W1 was deputed for town moving duty and later at about 9.00 p.m., he made a report to P.W5 alleging that while (P.W1) he has discharging his duties as police constable accused obstructed him from performing such duties and also caught hold his uniform collar and pushed him aside. But Ex.P2 was not clear and specific regarding specific overt acts of accused against P.W1 but it was clear and specific regarding incident happened at the temple premises at 7.00 p.m on 22.2.2019. Moreover, Ex.P2 extract made it clear that P.W1 was deputed for town moving duties at 5.00 p.m at the instance of P.W5.
13FAIR COPY
P.W1 in his evidence categorically stated that he was deputed for traffic regulation at vontimitta temple area around 5.00 p.m and while so, at 7.00 p.m., the alleged incident happened. The learned defence counsel during course of cross-examination and at the time of arguments vehemently submitted that Ex.P2 G.D entry did not disclose such alleged incident happened “at temple premises”. Admittedly, Ex.P2 contents did not disclose such incident happened “at temple premises” but mere omission to that effect in G.D entry would no way fatal to prosecution when the evidence of P.Ws1 to 4 were specific and clear regarding the incident happened at temple premises. G.D entry also in general could not contain all material facts as it will contain gist of a case and day to day acts of police officer who conducting investigation and also other police constables. Thus, the argument of learned defence counsel could not hold any water. Hence, prosecution has proved the facts that P.W1 has been discharging his official duties as police constable at relevant time at Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy temple, Vontimitta and while so, his duties were obstructed and deterred by accused by pushing him aside by holding uniform collar as he questioned the rash act of accused. P.W1 has every authority in his capacity as police constable question such act of accused. Thus, prosecution is able to prove the ingredients for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 353 and 506 IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act.
22. Further prosecution contented that accused alleged to have voluntarily caused hurt. Sec.319 IPC laid down ‘hurt’ as “ whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt ”. here in this case none of the witnesses P.W1 to 5 stated that any such act of accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to P.W1.
P.W1’s evidence on record divulges that accused intimidated him stating that he is local boy and do anything and thereby pushed him aside by 14FAIR COPY caught holding uniform collar. That act of accused amounts to intimidation as such act of accused deterred P.W1 from discharging his official duties as constable. But P.W1 could no where stated such act of accused would cause any bodily pain to him. IO/P.W5 also could not get any wound certificate to show that P.W1 sustained any such injury due to the act of accused at relevant time. Thus, there is no reliable evidence on record to arrive at a just decision that accused committed offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC.
23.Thus, the evidence adduced by prosecution both oral and documentary (discussed supra) established prosecution case to the effect that accused deterred P.W1 from performing his official duties as police constable; and that accused drove motorcycle/M.O-1 in a rash manner at the premises of Sri Kodanda Ramasway temple and such rash act is in a manner as to endanger human life as the scene/place of offence is a public way; and accused intimidated P.W1 from discharging his duties as police constable. Thus, this court is of considered view prosecution able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable
U/Secs.279,353, 506 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act and failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. In the result, this court found accused guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.279, 353 and 506 IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C; and found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.323 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C (Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of June, 2020.)
Sd/-N.Rajasekhar,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sidhout.
15FAIR COPY
When questioned regarding quantum of sentence, The accused submitted that he is having old aged parents and they are suffering from ill health and he himself running petty bunk for his livelihood as prayed to take lenient view in imposing sentence for the offence proved. The accused committed the alleged offence U/Secs.279 IPC,184 M.V.Act in rash manner, as he was having knowledge about the consequences and committed offence U.Sec.353 and 506 against public servant, hence, it is not a fit case to apply provisions of Probation of offenders Act, 1956 or
Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. However, in view of submissions made by accused, this court is inclined to take lenient view in imposing sentence.
Hence, accused is convicted under Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence
punishable U/Sec.353 IPC; further, accused is sentenced to pay
Rs.1,000/- IDSI for one month for the offence punishable
U/Sec.279 IPC, further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- IDSI for six months for the offence punishable
U/Sec.506 IPC ; and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- IDSI
for one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.184 of M.V.Act.
The accused informed his right of appeal to court of sessions with in 30 days and a copy of judgment also be submitted to the chairman
DLSA in case accused required any legal Aid in case accused prefer appeal. No question of set off U/Sec.428 would arise as fine only awarded for the offence proved. Further a copy of judgment supplied to accused at free of costs.
Total fine amount RS. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand
Only) 16FAIR COPY
M.O-1 to the interim custody of Shaik Karimula as per orders in
Crl.M.P.No.827/2019 dt:4.6.2019 holds good and be made after expiry of
appeal time.
Sd/-N.Rajasekhar,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sidhout.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For Prosecution: -
P.W.1: SP Ramthu Basha, Police constable
P.W.2: M.Chandra Sekar Reddy
P.W3: T.Vinod
P.W4: A.Manohar
P.W5: J.Dhanunjayudu, S.I., Vontimitta
For Defence: - -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: - For Defence: -
Ex.P1: Report of P.W1 dt:22.2.2019 -NIL-
Ex.P2: General Diary, dt:22.2.2019
Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2
Ex.P4: F.I.R dt:22.2.2019
Ex.P5: Rough Sketch
Ex.P6: Police Proceedings dt:23.2.2019
For Material Object:-
M.O-1:- Motor cycle bearing No.AP04BN4677 Id/-N.R.S., J.M.F.C., Sdt., 17FAIR COPY
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar and Judgment tried by Sri N. Raja Sekhar, Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Sidhout.
Date of
ApprehenReleaseCommen-ClosureDate of OffenceReport-on bailcementof trialJudgmen sion ofof trialt accused 22.2.201922.2.201923.2.201928.2.20196.11.201911.3.202019.6.2020 Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.165/2019 on the file of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout.
COMPLAINANT: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vontimitta P.S., in Cr.No.30/2019
Name of theAgeCallingReligionResidence accused with father’s name. Shaik Jabiulla, S/oAge: 22RiderofHindu D.No.2/25, Karimullayears,motor cycleTemple street, bearingVontimitta town NO.AP04BN4and mandal, 677 OffenceU/Secs.279, 353, 323 and 506 IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act
FindingThis court found accused guilty for the offence punishable
U/Secs.279, 353 and 506 IPC and Sec.184 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C; and found accused not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Secs.323 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C Sentence In the result, this court found accused guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.279, 353 and 506 IPC and
Sec.184 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted under
Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C; and found accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.323 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C
When questioned regarding quantum of sentence, The 18FAIR COPY accused submitted that he is having old aged parents and they are suffering from ill health and he himself running petty bunk for his livelihood as prayed to take lenient view in imposing sentence for the offence proved. The accused committed the alleged offence U/Secs.279 IPC,184 M.V.Act in rash manner, as he was having knowledge about the consequences and committed offence U.Sec.353 and 506 against public servant, hence, it is not a fit case to apply provisions of Probation of offenders Act, 1956 or Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. However, in view of submissions made by accused, this court is inclined to take lenient view in imposing sentence.
Hence, accused is convicted under Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 IPC; further, accused is sentenced to pay Rs.1,000/- IDSI for one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 IPC, further, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
IDSI for six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.506
IPC ; and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- IDSI for one month for the offence punishable U/Sec.184 of
M.V.Act.
The accused informed his right of appeal to court of
sessions with in 30 days and a copy of judgment also be
submitted to the chairman DLSA in case accused required any legal Aid in case accused prefer appeal. No question of set off
U/Sec.428 would arise as fine only awarded for the offence proved. Further a copy of judgment supplied to accused at free 19FAIR COPY of costs.
Total fine amount RS. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Thousand Only)
M.O-1 to the interim custody of Shaik Karimula as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.827/2019 dt:4.6.2019 holds good and be made after expiry of appeal time. Remarks--
Sd/-N.Rajasekhar,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Sidhout.
Copy submitted to:-
The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, KADAPA.