1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: ATMAKUR
Present: Sri NAGA SASIDHARA REDDY,
Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur
FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur
Wednesday, this the Seventeenth (17 th ) day of April, 2019
CALENDAR CASE No.35 of 2014
(Crime No.2/2014 of Kaluvoyi Police Station)
State: Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kaluvoyi Police Station .. Complainant
Vs.
1. Gadiparthi Jagadhala Naidu s/o Penchala Naidu, Aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
2. Gadiparthi Penchala Narayana s/o Penchala Naidu, Aged 42 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
3. Devineni Ratnaiah s/o Subbaramaiah, Aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
4. Devineni Rajamohan s/o Ratnaiah, Aged 23 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
5. Devineni Seenaiah @ Srinivasulu s/o Subbaramaiah Aged 35 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
6. Madineni Niranjan s/o Thirupalaiah, Aged 32 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
7. Bathula Prasad s/o Eswaraiah, Aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
8. Gutha Venkata Ratnam s/o Subbaiah, Aged 55 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
9. Mallavarapu Venkata Ratnam s/o Narasaiah, Aged 32 years, Kamma by caste, Chowtapalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal
..Accused
This case coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the complainant; and of Sri S.K. Sirajuddin – advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following—
J U D G M E N T
2
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaluvoyi Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.2/2014 against the above-named accused for the offence under
Sections 323,324 r/w 34 I.P.C.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:— There are previous grudges between the de-facto complainant/Madhamanchi Venkataiah (P.W.1) and the accused since past panchayat elections. About one month prior to the incident, P.W.1 auctioned village cattle yard for Rs.4,000/- in the village and kept 15 cattle in the yard. Keeping the misunderstandings in mind the accused removed the thorny fence of the cattle yard and drove away the 15 cattle from the yard. In that connection on 16.01.2014 at about 16.30 hours, P.W.1 went to the accused and questioned the same, and then, all the accused attacked P.W.1 and assaulted him with sticks, hands and legs. A-1 beat P.W.1 with a stick over left side of head and caused severe bleeding injury. A-7 beat him with stick and A-2 to A-6,
A-8 and A-9 beat him with hands and legs and caused internal injuries all over body.
On observing the same Madhamanchi Srinivasulu (P.W.2) and Gonugunta
Ramanamma (P.W.3) intervened and rescued P.W.1. Then, A-5 beat him with stick and caused swelling injury near left eye, A-1 and A-2 beat him with sticks over body and remaining accused beat him with hands and legs and caused injuries. A-4 beat
P.W.3 with a stick over left side head and caused severe bleeding injury. A-6 beat
P.W.3 with stick over hands and legs and caused swelling injuries and remaining accused beat her with hands and legs all over body and caused injuries. The said incident was witnessed by B.Suresh (P.W.6), G.Bujjamma (P.W.7) B.Ramanamma (L.W.8), M.Seetharavamma (P.W.9) and D.Penchala Narasaiah (P.W.8) and others.
Then, after knowing the said incident, M. Ramanamma and M.Radhaiah (P.W.4) rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to DSR Government Hospital, Nellore in 108 Ambulance. Basing on the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Hospital OP
Police, a case in Crime No. 2/2014 was registered by the Kaluvoyi police for the offence under sections 323,324 r/w 34 IPC on 16.01.2014 at 23.30 hours and investigated into the matter.
(i) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaluvoyi
Police Station (P.W.11) visited DSR Government Hospital, Nellore and examined PWs 1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Then, he secured the presence of
L.W.4/Ramanamma, P.W.4 and examined and recorded their statements. Later, he 3 reached Chothapalli village on 17.01.2014 and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch and examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 18.01.2014 at 7.30 hours on credible information, he reached
Saravamitta and arrested all the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After receiving wound certificates of the injured persons, and after completion of his investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under
Sections 323,324 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.
3.The above case was taken on file by my learned predecessor-in-office for the offence under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused and summons was ordered to them.
4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34
I.P.C., and they denied the same. On considering the submissions of the accused, charges under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC have been framed against A-1 to A- 9, read over and explained the same in Telugu, for which A-1 to A-9 pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and placed reliance on Exhibits P-1 to P-9.
6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating material elicited from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same, by stating that they never committed any offence and they have no complicity with the crime and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the accused.
8.The point for determination is__ Whether the prosecution has
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the
offences under Sections 323, 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC?
P O I N T
9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued before the Court that—the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 11 coupled with Exhibits P-1 to P-9 is in support of 4 the prosecution case, and established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused are liable for conviction.
(i)On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued before the
Court that—the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the case against the accused, and nobody stated before the Court about the alleged offence, and also about the beating by the accused, and the prosecution failed to establish the case, and therefore, the benefit-of-doubt shall go in favour of the accused. He further submitted that the Investigating officer did not explain the delay in registration and sending it to court. The evidence of PWs 1 to 10 is totally deviating from the version of prosecution in all aspects including the alleged incident and beating by the accused. The alleged eye witnesses who are examined as PWs 8 and 9 did not support the case of prosecution at any point of time. The evidence of other witnesses is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. There was no corroborative evidence and taking advantage of the previous disputes, a false case has been foisted against the accused. He submitted that the total evidence is untrustworthy and to give a threat to A-1, PW-1 might have lodged this false case and therefore, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and entitled for acquittal.
10.In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and placed reliance on Exhibits P-1 to P-9. The evidence of the prosecution in brief is as follows—
(i)PW-1 is the de-facto-complainant, PWs. 2 to 9 are the corroborating witnesses, P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who gave treatment to P.Ws.1 to 3 and
P.W.11 is the Investigating officer.
(ii)P.W.1, who is the de-facto-complainant, categorically stated that he got the cattle yard in the auction and drove his 15 cattle in the yard. After one month, he came to know that the accused removed fencing of the cattle yard and drove away the said cattle and immediately he rushed to the spot and noticed that the accused were present and when asked them about their behavior, A-1 beat him with a stick on his head, A-7 beat him on his back side and the other accused beat him with the hands and legs. He deposed that at that time P.W.2 came to rescued him. Then, A-6 beat P.W.2 with a stick on his head, A-1, A-2 also beat him with sticks, and the rest of the accused kicked him with their legs and beat him with their hands. During that time, P.W.3 came there to rescue and then, A-4 beat her on her shoulder and on her head with a stick. All the accused beat her with their hands 5 and legs. All the other persons witnessed the incident. Then, P.Ws. 2 and 3 shifted him to Government Hospital, Nellore in 108 Ambulance. He further stated that the police recorded his statement under Exhibit P-1.
(iii) P.W.2 who is the son of P.W.1 corroborated the version of P.W.1 and further deposed that all the accused beat him with sticks and kicked him with legs and hands and caused injury to him. He stated that all the accused caused injuries to them due to prior enmity regarding panchayat elections. (iv) P.W.3 who is the sister of P.W.1 corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 in all aspects. P.W.4 who is the relative of P.W.1 deposed that he accompanied P.W.1 for questioning the accused and then, A-1 and A-7 beat P.W.1 with a stick, A-5 beat P.W.2 and then, A-6 slapped P.W.3 and on intervention of the villagers the accused left and then, P.Ws.
1 to 3 got shifted to hospital. P.W.5 deposed that at about 4.30 p.m., on 16.01.2014 while he was present at cattle yard, all the accused beat P.W.1 with a stick and caused injuries to PWs 1 to 3 and by that he was on wheel chair and then the villagers shifted them to Government Hospital, Nellore. P.Ws.6 and 7 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.
(v)P.W.8 deposed that after coming to know about the altercations he went to the spot along with others and saw that PWs 1 to 3 were having injuries and at that time the persons who beat PWs 1 to 3 are not found and he do not know who beat PWs 1 to 3 and after that PWs 1 to 3 got shifted to Hospital. P.W.9 stated that at about four years back at 4.00 p.m., while he was returning from tobacco Barney, there was a mob at cattle yard and observed that P.W.2 was present with injuries and do not know what was happened.
(vi)P.W.10 the Medical Officer deposed that on 16.11.2014, he examined
PWs 1 to 3 at 6.10 pm., 6.15 pm., and 6.45 p.m., respectively and found that “three centimeters lacerated injury over right parietal area of scalp to P.W.1” “contusion left temporal Zygomatic area to P.W.2” and “three centimeters lacerated injury over left temporal parietal area to P.W.3” and issued wound certificates under Exhibits P- 2 to P-4.
(vii) PW-11 who is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 16.01.2014 at 23.30 hours he received Exhibit P-5/hospital intimation along with Exhibit P- 1/Statement and then he registered a case under Exhibit P.6/FIR and took up investigation. He deposed that on 17.01.2014 he visited Government Hospital,
Nellore and examined PWs 1 to 3 and then, he secured the presence of 6
L.W.4/Ramanamma, P.W.4 and examined and recorded their statements. Later, he reached Chothapalli village and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch under Exhibit P-7 and examined all the witnesses and that PWs 8 and 9 have stated before him as in Exhibits P-8 and P-9/161 Cr.P.C. statements and on 18.01.2014 at about 7.30 hours he received information about the accused and then, he reached Saravamitta and arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After receiving wound certificates, he prepared charge sheet and filed
before the court.
11.In the light of above evidence, it is the case of the prosecution that they are able to prove the guilt of the accused - that the accused beat PWs 1 to 3, and they sustained injuries as per Exhibits P-2 to P-4/wound certificates, and that the police registered a case under Exhibit P.6 and after receiving the wound certificates of P.Ws.1 to 3 and on examination of all the witnesses laid charge sheet against the accused, and that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused, and therefore, the accused are liable for conviction.
(i)On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the case of prosecution at any point of time and nobody deposed in support of the case of the prosecution and cross examined the de-facto complainant, and other witnesses including investigating officers which runs as follows :-
(ii)During cross examination the de-facto complainant (P.W.1) categorically stated that the village elders not given any certificate to him to show that cattle yard was handed over to him. He does not know the exact date of auction of the said cattle yard. He further stated that there were disputes between him and the accused even prior to the date of offence regarding panchayat elections. He stated that A-1 and one Danyala Chandraiah who is his relative contested in the panchayat elections and A-1 was defeated. He further stated that
P.W.3 is his sister, L.W.4/Ramanamma is his wife, P.W.4 is his relative, P.W.6 is his grandson, and P.W.7 is his distant relative. He denied the suggestion that the accused never caused any injuries to them and he filed a false case against the accused at the instance of one Chandraiah.
(iii) P.W.2 who is the son of P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that they are having disputes with the accused regarding panchayat elections. He 7 stated that he was present at a distance of 30 to 40 feet from the scene of offence.
He stated that on the next date of incident, the police examined him and recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that the accused never caused any injuries to them.
(iv) P.W.3 in her cross examination stated that there are disputes between them and the accused during the panchayat elections. She stated that at present she is not having talking terms with the accused.
(v) P.W.4 in his cross examination deposed that P.W.1 is his relative and denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time alleged offence and not witnessed anything.
(vi)P.W.5 in his cross examination deposed that at about 30 to 50 persons gathered at the scene of offence and denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time alleged incident.
(vii) P.W.6 deposed that in his statement it is not found that one Bollineni
Venkateswarlu and others mediated the issue. He denied the suggestion that due to relationship he is deposing falsely to help PWs 1 and 2.
(viii) P.W.7 deposed in her cross examination that PWs 1 to 3 are her relatives and at the time of her visit to the spot, the galata was over and then, she rescued them. She cannot say who beat whom. She further stated that there was some altercation during the time panchayat elections. She denied the suggestion that there was no cattle yard in their village and intentionally this case was foisted.
(ix) PWs 8 and 9 who are alleged eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution in all aspects and denied the suggestion that they have stated before the police as in Exhibits P-8 and P-9. But both of them stated that PWs 1 to 3 sustained injuries and found near the cattle yard.
(x) During cross examination, P.W.10 (Medical Officer) deposed that there was no specific mention in the wound certificates by whom the injured persons have been admitted in the hospital. He further stated that if anybody falls down, the injuries mentioned in Exhibits P-2 to P-4 may be caused. He further stated that in
Exhibit P-4, it was mentioned that he examined the victim on 22.2.2014 at 6.45 p.m., and issued wound certificate on the same day.
(xi) PW-11 (Investigating Officer) in his cross examination stated that there are previous disputes between PWs 1 and 2 with the accused. He has not verified the proceedings in respect of allotment of cattle yard in auction to P.W.1. He has 8 not examined panchayat Secretary and not examined the villagers in the aspect of allotment of cattle yard to P.W.1. In panchyat elections the accused were in one group and the complainant and his men were in another group. He further stated that the person belong to the accused won in the panchayat elections. He has not seized any sticks and blood stained clothes at the alleged scene of offence place.
He further stated that the distance between chowthapalli and Kaluvoy may be about 20 KMs. He further stated that there is one Government Hospital at
Podalakur and at Kaluvoy.
12.On a careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, it clearly shows that there are previous disputes in between P.W.1, P.W.2 with the accused in respect of Panchayat elections which were held prior to the incident. The police did not investigate into such disputes. As seen from the testimony of all the witnesses, the alleged incident was occurred at 4.30 p.m., on 16.01.2014 near cattle yard at
Chowthapalli village, and the injured P.W.1 deposed that the incident was occurred at 4.00 or 5.00 pm, P.W.3 did not state the time, whereas P.W.2 stated that the incident was occurred at 4.30 p.m., and the accused beat them and they sustained injuries and then, they went to Government Hospital, Nellore and police examined
P.W.1 and recorded his statement at 8.00 p.m.,
(i)P.W.1 categorically stated that A-1 beat him with a stick and A-7 beat him on his back side and others beat him with their hands and legs. He did not speak anything in his evidence about the injuries caused to him and where the same are caused and did not speak against the other accused. He stated that there were disputes between him and the accused even prior to the date of offence regarding panchyat elections. He categorically stated that except PWs 8 and 9, all the other witnesses are his close relatives. He did not produce any certificate to show that he got auction the cattle yard in the village.
(ii)As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that A-1 and A-7 beat
P.W.1 with a stick and the others beat him with hands and legs and P.W.1 fall down on the ground. A-1 and A-2 beat P.W.2 with sticks and caused injuries to him due to prior enmity in the panchayat elections. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that the accused A-1 and A-7 beat P.W.1 and caused injuries to his right shoulder and the remaining accused beat him with hands and legs and A-4 and A-6 beat P.W.3 on her head. The same was corroborated by P.W.4 by stating that A-1 and A-7 beat P.W.1 with a stick and caused injury, then, A-5 beat P.W.2 and A-4 beat P.W.3. From the 9 evidence of P.W.5, all accused beat PWs 1 to 3 and about 30 to 50 persons gathered there. P.W.6 categorically stated that there are disputes between the accused and
P.Ws.1 and 2 during Sarpanch elections and stated that A-1 and A-7 beat P.W.1 with a stick and P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury, then A-1 and A-5 beat P.W.2 with a stick and the head of P.W.2 was broken and sustained injury, after that A-4 and A-8 beat
P.W.3 and she fall down. P.W.7 categorically stated that at the time of his reach to the spot, the altercation was over and then, he rescued the victims. He cannot say who beat whom and stated that there was some altercation during panchayat elections. PWs 8 and 9 categorically stated they saw injuries of PWs 1 to 3, but they do not found the persons who beat them.
(iii) The Evidence of Medical officer is consistent about the examination of the victims and issuance of wound certificates under Exhibits P.2 to P.4. He stated that all the injuries are simple in nature and they may cause if anybody fall down.
He stated that he examined P.W.3 on 22.2.2014 and issued wound certificate to police.
(iv)The Investigating Officer categorically stated that he received only hospital intimation along with the statement and then, he registered a case on 16.01.2014 at 23.30 hours on the basis of statement which was recorded at 8.00 p.m., on 16.01.2014. He categorically stated that all the witnesses are interrelated and belong to one group and the accused belong another group and there are disputes during the panchayat elections in the village between them. He stated that there are Government Hospitals at Kaluvoy and at Podalakur and further stated that after 108 services are provided they used to take the victim to Government
General Hospital, Nellore. The Medical Officer clearly stated that the injury is simple in nature. The OP police officer who recorded the statement was cited as a witness in this case by the prosecution to confirm the contents in it, but he was not examined.
13.With the above oral and documentary evidence, it is seen that the de- facto-complainant and others are interrelated and there was dispute in respect of
Panchayat elections between P.Ws.1, 2 with the accused, as A-1 contested in the
Panchayat elections and the close relative of P.W.1 by name Chandraiah was contested against him. PW-1 set the criminal law into motion by stating that on 16.01.2014 at 4.00 or 5.00 p.m. when the accused removed the fence of the cattle yard of him and drove away 15 cattle which were in the yard, the alleged incident 10 occurred, and that A-1 and A-7 beat P.W.1; A-1, A-2 and A-6 beat P.W.2 and A-4 and
A-6 beat P.W.3 with sticks and others beat with hands and legs and the same was corroborated by all the witnesses and P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained injuries and got treatment at Government Hospital, Nellore on the same day. As seen from her evidence, all the other persons came to the spot on hearing the altercation and found the injured persons. It is clear that about 30 to 50 persons were gathered at the scene of offence and nothing was elicited by the accused to discredit the testimonies of all the witnesses and did not even put any suggestions to those witnesses where the incident was occurred and who beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 and who were present. But the learned counsel for the accused simply put suggestions that there was no such incident occurred and only due to previous disputes in respect of
Panchayat elections a false case has been foisted against the accused.
(i)The testimonies of all the witnesses clearly shows that A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 involved in the incident and beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 and they sustained injuries and got admitted in Government Hospital, Nellore and taken treatment as per the wound certificates under Exhibits P-2 to P-4 and at the time of incident P.Ws 8 and 9 who are the independent witnesses were present and seen the injuries caused to
P.Ws. 1 to 3, though they deviate some portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statements in Exhibits
P-8 and P-9. But the total evidence goes to show that A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 beat all the victims i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3 with a stick and caused injuries. The evidence of
Medical Officer/P.W.10 clearly supports the case of prosecution, except some deviation in respect of treatment given to P.W.3 and issuance of wound certificate under Exhibit P-4. He further stated that the injuries may be caused if anybody falls on ground. The evidence of the Investigating officer is also corroborative and consistent and nothing was elicited from his evidence by the accused except eliciting that there are previous disputes in respect of Panchayat elections and some of the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant and not obtained any certificate to show that cattle yard was auctioned in favour of P.W.1.
14.On a careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, it clearly shows that A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 beat PWs 1 to 3 with sticks and others beat with hands and legs. There is inconsistency in the evidence of all the witnesses with regard to involvement of all the accused and beating them. From the above evidence, it is seen that, the allegations against A-2, A-3, A-5, A-8 and A-9 in respect of the incident are not made out. It is also clear from the evidence that all the witnesses 11 corroborated the contents of Exhibit P-1 and there is no deviation from the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused did not elicit anything from the said witnesses in their favour. The injuries are corroborated with the wound certificates; but there are minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. It is common to a natural witness to exaggerate or to deviates some extent of evidence, as the alleged incident occurred long back. While questioning the acts of the accused by P.W.1, the accused beat him and after that P.Ws. 2 and 3 came there and tried to rescue him and they also received injuries in that process.
(i)Though the accused elicited from the evidence of all the witnesses that they are interrelated and no certificate was produced in respect of the allotment of cattle yard to P.W.1, but nothing has discredited the fact by way of suggestions to those persons that no injuries were caused to PWs-1, 2 and 3. As seen from the said evidence, it has made out that A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 with sticks and also with hands and legs. There is no corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1 by the other witnesses with regard to the presence of A-2, A-3, A-5, A-8 and A-9 at the scene of offence at the time of the occurrence and nothing was attributed against them, but the involvement of A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 was made out and there is complete correspondence between the result and intention of the accused.
(ii)With regard to the incident, there is a chain of events and consistency regarding beating by A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 but there is some discrepancy with regard to the presence and beating by other accused. Admittedly, there is dispute in between P.W.1 and A-1 in respect of the Panchayat elections since a long time and there is no dispute about the alleged incident by both the parties as there was no such suggestion from the accused and there was no suggestion with regard to non-receiving of injuries by PWs 1, 2 and 3. The Medical Officer also corroborated the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 in all aspects and the wound certificates coincide with the wounds stated by them. The wound certificates show that PWs 1, 2 and 3 were admitted in Hospital pm 16.01.2014 at 4.30 p.m. The Medical Officer categorically stated that the injuries may be caused if anybody falls on ground.
Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1 to 11 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exhibits P-1 to P-9. Simply because the injuries mentioned in
Exhibits P-2 to P-4 wound certificates can be caused by other modes, it cannot be said that PWs 1, 2 and 3 did not sustain any injuries in the hands of the accused.
No doubt if any person falls down on any sharp object, the injuries might be 12 received. As seen from the wound certificates there are no possibility of sustaining those injuries on “temporal Zygomatic area, right parietal area of scalp”; and it can be presumed that PWs 1, 2 and 3 might have received those injuries with a stick.
The evidence of PWs 1 to 7 coupled with the documentary evidence of the wound certificates; clearly shows that PWs 1, 2 and 3 received injuries in the hands of the accused (A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7) on the date of offence. Their evidence is consistent and corroborative and inspires the confidence of the court to believe the same particularly in view of strained feelings between the accused and P.W.1 in respect of the Panchayat elections.
15.As seen from the suggestions put-forth to the prosecution witnesses, it is the case of the accused that a false case has been foisted against them due to the panchayat elections dispute between the accused and P.W.1, but the contestant is not P.W.1 and that the contestants in Panchayat election are A-1 and one
Chandraiah who is close relative of P.W.1.
(i)The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are number of discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution from the evidence of those witnesses, and the accused are entitled to the benefit-of-doubt.
(ii)In this aspect, I am fortified by a decision reported in 2008(2) ALD (Crl) 804 and also a decision reported in 2009(2) ALD (Crl) 121. In both the decisions, the Hon’ble High Court observed that— “…. Minor discrepancies in evidence with regard to the manner of giving report to police cannot be given undue importance when witness was deposing about the incident after a lapse of one year, and it is settled principle of law that the court should not attach undue importance to minor contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of a natural witness….”
(iii)The learned counsel for the accused argued that only P.W.1 has stated about the alleged beating by A-1 to A-9 and there is no corroboration to his evidence, and, therefore, his evidence cannot be looked into, and he has deposed
before the court keeping in mind about the previous incidents.
(iv)In this aspect, I am fortified by a decision reported in the case of “B.Murali @ Prasad v. State of A.P.”1, wherein it was held that— “There is no bar in placing reliance on the evidence of solitary witness. Conviction can be sustained on the basis of a solitary witness, and evidence of solitary witness when appears to be not 1 2000(2) ALD (Crl) 139 (AP) 13
wholly reliable, requires corroboration from evidence of other
witnesses, and assurance from the circumstantial evidence. ”
(v)The learned counsel for the accused argued that all the witnesses are interrelated and cannot be relied on in the absence of any independent evidence.
(vi)In this aspect, I am fortified by a decision reported in the case of “V.Krishna v. State of A.P.”2wherein it is observed that— “It was well settled that the relationship or interestedness is not a ground to brush aside the evidence of prosecution witness, provided their evidence is reliable, truthful and trustworthy. The only requirement is that the Court should be cautious in appreciating such evidence.”.
I am also fortified by a decision reported in the case of “SatniBai v. State of
Madhya Pradesh”3, wherein it was held that— “When the case rests only on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.”.
(vii)The ratios available in the above said observations is rightly applicable to the case on hand, as the evidence of PWs 1 to 11 is corroborative with each other in all aspects, and also proved the guilt of the accused in beating PWs 1, 2 and 3, as no suggestion was put to any of the witnesses about the said alleged incident at any point of time. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly indicates the chain of circumstances and facts.
(viii)On a cumulative reading of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, together with the material record, the court is of the view that the prosecution has consistently established the guilt of the accused A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 about the beating and miserably failed in proving the guilt against A-2, A-3, A-5, A-8 and A-9 in view of inconsistency in evidence.
16.Coming to the weapons used in the alleged offence, admittedly
P.W.11, the Investigating Officers, did not seize any material objects from the scene of offence and did not fix as to who are the aggressors, and who are the aggresses in this case.
2 2010(1) ALD (Crl) 403 3 2010(1) ALD (Crl) 850 14
(i)Therefore, following the provisions of Section 222 of Cr.P.C., I hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and it failed to prove its case against all the accused for the charges under Sections 324 r/w 34 I.P.C., and the respective charges against A-1 to
A-9 under Section 324 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.
17.In the result, the accused A-1 to A-9 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. r/w 34 IPC and they all are acquitted of the same under
Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. But the accused A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 are found guilty of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and they are convicted under Section 248(2)
Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The accused A2, A3, A5, A8, A9 are not found guilty of the offence under section 323 IPC and they are acquitted under section248(1)
Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Typed by me on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open
Court, this the 17th day of April 2019.
Sd/- N.Sasidhara Reddy
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
ATMAKUR
17.04.2019:
(i) A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed on them. All of them pleaded mercy, stating that they are inter-related and further requesting to treat this as their first mistake, and thus praying for admonition.
(ii) Considering the mercy plea taken by the accused, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I feel it would be justified if they are sentenced to pay fine for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.
(iii) In the result, A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 are sentenced under Section 323
I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. [Total fine amount payable is
Rs.4,000/- Rupees Four thousand only]. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. All the accused were remanded to judicial custody on 18.01.2014 and they got released on the same day. The case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of April 2019.
Sd/- N.Sasidhara Reddy
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
ATMAKUR
15
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
PW-1 :M.Venkataiah -- NONE -- PW-2 :M. Srinivasulu PW-3 : G.Ramanamma PW-4 :M. Radhaiah PW-5 :B.Venkateswarlu PW-6 :B.Suresh PW-7 :G.Bujjamma PW-8 :D.Penchala Narasaiah PW-9 :M.Seetharavamma PW-10:Dr. S.K.Kalesha Basha, Medical Officer PW-11:M.Purnachandra Rao, Investigating Officer
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution:
Ex.P1Statement of PW-1 dated 16.01.2014 recorded by police officer in OP, Government Hospital, Nellore Ex.P2Wound Certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P3Wound Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P4Wound Certificate of P.W.3 Ex.P5Hospital Intimation dated: 16.01.2014 Ex.P6FIR in Crime No.2/2014, dated: 16.01.2014 Ex.P7Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8 Ex.P9161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9
For defence: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Sd/- N.Sasidhara Reddy
Judicial Magistrate of 1 st class:
ATMAKUR