1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
SATTENAPALLI
PRESENT:- Smt. P. Priyadarsini,
I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli
Friday, this the 12thday of December, 2025
CALENDAR CASE No.35/2019
Between: The State of A.P. represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Sattenapalli, Guntur Rural... Complainant
AND
1. Yatagiri Anjaneyulu, S/o. Veeriaiah, 42 yrs,
2. Eluri Swaminadham @ Swaminadh, S/o. Sambaiah, 37 yrs,
3. Potluri Srinu, S/o. Subbarao, 30 yrs,
4. Potluri Hanumanthu, S/o. Subbarao, 35 yrs,
5. Potluri Subbarao, s/o. Ramaiah, 70 yrs,
6. Yatagiri Anjamma, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 40 yrs,
7. Potluri Tirumala, W/o. nageswararao, 25 yrs,
8. Yatagiri Venkataravamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu, 55 yrs,
9. Yatagiri Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Sivanjaneulu, 50 yrs,
10. Plotluri Padma, W/o Babu, 35 yrs,
11. Talupula Vijaya, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 35 yrs,
12. Yatagiri Krishna Veni, W/o. KoteswaraRaoo, 35 yrs,
13. Yatagiri Jyothi, W/o. Ayyoraiah, 30 yrs,
A1 to A13 are R/o. Pesapadu Village, Krosuru Mandal.
… Accused/A1 to A13
This case is coming on 27.11.2025for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and learned advocate Sri ChavaBabu Rao, for the Accused/A1 to A13 and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:- 2
JUDGMENT
1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Krosuru
Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.288/2018 against the accused/A1 to A13 for the offences u/sec. 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC of
Krosuru P.S.
2.Brief Facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
L.Ws.1 to 10 are resident of B.C. Colony, Pesapadu Village,
Krosuru Mandal. On 26.10.2018 night at about 07.30 p.m., A12 sat on a pail infront of house of A5 which is quite opposite to the house of L.Ws.3 and 4 and started abusing on the plea that who is son of L.Ws.3 and 4 who is brought out from jail and he may going to kill some other persons in the village on that a wordy duel taken place between L.W.1 and A12 in the meanwhile, followers ofboth groups gathered there scuffled with each other and in the meanwhile, L.Ws.1 and 2 returned to village from
Sattenapalli noticed scuffle at the house of L.Ws.3 and 4 and rushed there and A2 abused as “ChakaliNaaKodakallaraa” and L.W.3 objected his abusive language, then all the accused attacked against L.Ws.3 to 6 and beating them with sticks and knives and L.Ws.1 and 2 some others pacified the issue. Then, all accused with common intention to attack
L.Ws.3 and 4, Mutukuri Appamma and Mutukuri Sambasiva Rao and other Rajaka community persons who supporting to them attacked with sticks and knives and also beat them with hands and legs indiscriminately and A1 attacked L.W.1 with knife and caused inflicted bleeding injury to her left leg and A2 beat L.W.5/Mandadapu Venkata Ramana @ Venkata
Rao, resulting, he received fracture injury. During confidential enquiries and on examining the independent eye witnesses in the entire incident
A12 is the aggressor and became responsible for commission of offences between both groups, intentionally sat opposite to the house of L.Ws.3 3 and 4 started abusing L.Ws.3 and 4 as their son Konda for obtaining bail to said Konda due to which dispute accelerated which leads to commission of both offences. On that L.W.1 presented a report to the police. Basing on the written report, L.W.14/SI of Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.288/2018, U/Sec.323, 324 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. Later,
L.W.10/Sub Inspector of Police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4.
After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against accused.
3.This Court taken cognizance against the accused/A1 to A13 under Section 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC.
4.On appearance of A1 to A13 before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.
5.A1 to A13 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 323, 324, 326r/w 34 IPC. The contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu,for which, they denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to
P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12.
7.The accused/A1 to A13 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which they pleaded not guilty and reported no evidence on their behalf.
4
8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
9. T he point that arises for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the offences U/sec.323, 324, 326 read with 34 IPC against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt?"
Point:
10.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.
P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and L.W.4/M. Sambasiva Rao are the injured. P.W.1 is the wife of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and also brother to P.Ws.2 and P.W.5 is the wife of
P.W.4i.e., P.Ws.1 to 5 are same family members of P.W.1. P.Ws.6 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. P.W.10 is the VRO who drafted Scene Observation Report. P.W.1 is the Medical Officer who rendered treatment to P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and L.W.4/M. Sambasiva Rao. P.W.12 is the investigating Officer. Apart from that Ex.P1 is the Report. Ex.P2 to
P5 are the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.6 to 9. Ex.P6 is the Scene
Observation Report. Ex.P7 to P10 are the Wound Certificates issued by
P.W.11. Ex.P11 is the F.I.R. Ex.P12 is the Rough Sketch of the Scene of
Offence.
11.It is the case of prosecution that on 26.10.2018 at about 07.30 p.m., A12 sat infront of the house of A5, which is situated opposite to the house of P.W.3 and L.W.4 and abused the son of P.W.3 and L.W.4 by name Konda, alleging that he was responsible for her daughter’s death. During the incident, an altercation took place between P.W.1 and
A12. In the meantime, P.W.3 and L.W.4 rushed to the spot. At that juncture A2 abused P.W.3, uttering abusive words by insulting their caste.
Thereafter, A1 to A13 allegedly attacked P.ws.3 to 5 and L.W.4 and while 5 beating them with sticks and knives, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with some other persons belonging to their caste intervened in an attempt to pacify the issue. During the attack, A1 assaulted P.W.1 with a knife, causing a bleeding injury to her left leg and A2 beat P.W.4 with a stick, resulting which a fracture injury. All the accused are further alleged to have beaten the other victims indiscriminately with hands and legs, thereby causing injuries. The learned APP further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is consistent and corroborative and although the independent eye witnessesP.Ws.6 to 9 turned hostile, their testimony does not in any manner weaken the prosecution case. Thus, prima-facie has been established against all the accused thereby the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against them.
12.On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned defence counsel that except the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5, there is no independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution version. It is argued that although the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, their testimonies do not establish eh accusations alleged against the accused. It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.12 relates entirely to the investigation and does not advance the prosecution case. The defence further submits that the independent eye witnesses, namely P.Ws.6 to 9 have turned hostile, rendering their evidence unusable for the prosecution. It is also pointed out that the alleged weapons of offence i.e., the stick and knife were not seized by the investigating Officer, and even the blood stained clothes were not recovered during the investigation. The prosecution also failed to examine L.W.4/M. Sambasivarao who is claimed to be another eye witness to the incident. It is argued that P.W.11, the Medical Officer did not offer any opinion regarding the injuries allegedly sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.11 and admitted during cross examination that there were no external injuries on the body of P.W.3. In view of all these circumstances, 6 the defence contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, A1 to A13 are entitled to acquittal.
13.With respect to the aforesaid charge, unfolding the case of prosecution, Madadapau Koteswaramma/P.W.1 has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 08.00 p.m., A1 and A12 went to the house of
L.W.4/M. Sambasiva Rao and used unparliamentary language. All accused A1 to A13 beather and P.Ws.2 to 5 and L.W.4. A1 attacked her with knife and she sustains injuries on his left hand. A3 attacked P.W.4 with sticks and knife and he sustained injuries on left arm. A3 attacked her with knife and that the accused beat P.Ws.1 to 5 and L.W.4, in Cross- examination she candidly admitted that she was not present at the scene of offence when the alleged incident occurred, thereby rendering her version hearsay and devoid of probative value. She further admitted that there existed prior enmity between both parties on account of the death of
A12’s daughter and the case registered against her son in Crime
No.250/2018 under the provisions of IPC, POCSO and SC/ST (PoA) Act, which clearly establishes a strong motive for false implication. Her statement that the report was written by the police on their own and that her 161 Cr.P.C examination took place after a delay of four days creates serious doubt about the spontaneity and credibility of her version. The admitted fact that no weapon, much less the alleged knife, was seized by the police, coupled with the absence of any medical evidence to support the alleged injuries, further weakens the prosecution story. Though she claimed that 50 to 60 persons had gathered at the place, no independent witness was examined to corroborate her version. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is found to be unreliable and wholly insufficient.
7
14.Madapadu Srinivasa Rao/P.W.2 is no other than the husband of P.W.1 deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about a 07.30 p.m., when he was at Sattenapalli got information from P.W.3 on a call about dispute between accused and P.W.1. Then he rushed to the scene of offence and try to pacify the issued between A1, A6 and P.W.1 but then,
A2, A3 and A12 came to the scene of the offence i.e., house of P.W.3.
A2, A3, A12 beat him and P.W.1 with sticks and knifes on arms. P.W.1 sustained injuries on left hand. P.W.4 sustained injuries on left hand through A2 and A3 with sticks. All accused beat P.W.1 with whims and fancies later P.W.1 went to the police station and gave the report. Further
P.W.2 during cross-examination admitted that upon receiving a phone call from P.W.3 regarding a dispute between P.W.1 and the accused, he rushed to the scene of offence and was allegedly beaten by A2, A3 and
A12 with sticks and knives, his version stands uncorroborated by any independent evidence. P.W.2 admits that P.W.1 is his wife and L.Ws.3 to 6 are all his close relatives., which establishes that only interested witnesses were present, despite his own admission that several persons had gathered at the spot. He further admits that the present dispute arose on account of the death of A12’s daughter and the criminal case registered against his nephew Yedoukondalu, thereby demonstrating pre- existing enmity between the parties.Significantly, P.W.2 admits that the police did not seize any knife or stick from the scene, which directly undermines the allegation of assault with deadly weapons. His admission that a case under the SC/ST (POA) Act was filed by A12 against P.W.2,
P.W.1 and L.Ws.3 to 6 lends support to the defence plea of counterblast.
15.P.W.3 had deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 07.30 p.m., while he is at his house along with L.W.4, A12 Yadagiri Krishna Veni came to the house of Subba Rao/A5 and scolded her. On questioning
A12 stated that her daughter by name Naga Lakshmi died due to P.W.3’s 8 son/Yedukondalu. Meanwhile, A12 phone called to the other accused,
A1 brought knife and hacked P.W.1 and she sustained injuries on let hand. Then after A2 to A4 came with sticks and beat P.W.5 and she got fractured left hand. A6, A9, A10, A12, A13 kicked her and her husband
L.W.4 with hands and legs indiscriminately and sustained injuries. Then after himself along with P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 went to police station and
P.W.1 gave a report in the police station. The said dispute taken place between them is due to A12 claiming that the death of her daughter.
P.W.3 admits during her cross-examination that a case in Crime
No.250/2018 of Krosuru Police Station was registered against her own son under sections 306, 354(D), 366 IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST Act for the death of A12’s daughter and that her son was arrested and released on bail shortly before the alleged incident, clearly establishing deep-rooted hostility and providing a strong motive for false implication. She further admits that a case under the
SC/ST Act was also filed by A12 against P.W.3, P.W.1, P.W.2 and
L.Ws.4 to 6, in which they are on bail and regularly attending court, thereby fortifying the defence plea of counterblast. Though P.W.3 claimed that several accused assaulted them with knives, sticks and kicks, he admits that police examined him only on the next day and there is no reliable corroboration of the alleged weapon use or the claimed fracture of P.W.4. His statement that around 20 persons gathered at the place but none were examined by the prosecution raises and adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act.The admitted fact that the alleged occurrence took place on a public cement road in front of A5’s house, coupled with absence of seizure of weapons, or independent testimony, renders his version highly doubtful.
16.In addition to that P.W.4/Mandapadu Venkata Ramana deposed that in the years on 2018 at about 07.30 pm., while he was at his 9 house, he came to the house of P.W.3 by knowing one galata is going between A12 and P.W.3 at the time A2 and A3 beat him on that he sustain injury on left hand, then P.W.1 came to the seen the offence, at that time, a1 attacked on that she sustain the bleeding the injuries on her left hand at the time A4 and A5 beat with hands and legs indiscriminately.
Then, A9, 12, 13 beat P.W.3 with hands and legs indiscriminately. Then
P.W.3 joined in sattenapalli General hospital. On that P.W.1 came to police station and gave a report. In cross-examination, P.W.4 categorically admits that a criminal case relating to the death of A12’s daughter is pending against P.W.3’s son, and that the present complaint was lodged only after P.W.3’s son was released from jail in that case, thereby clearly establishing prior enmity between the parties. He further admits that an SC/ST case is pending between A12 on one side and
P.Ws.1, 2, 3, L.W.4 and himself on the other and that he is an accused in that case, which strongly supports the defence plea of counterblast.
Although P.W.4 asserts that he sustained injuries and that P.W.3 was admitted in Sattenapalli General Hospital, no medical evidence has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate any such injuries. His admission that the alleged occurrence took place on a public cement road in front of A5’s house, where 30 to 40 persons had gathered, but none of these persons were examined by the prosecution, further weakens his version and invites an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the
Evidence Act. In the absence of corroboration with independent witnesses cannot be safely relied.
17.P.W.5/Mandapaduu Venkateswaramma who is none other than wife of P.W.4 deposed that in the year, 2018 at about 07.30 p.m., while she is at her house came to the house of P.W.3 by knowing one galata is going between A12 and P.W.3, at the timeA2 and A3 beat P.W.
4 on that he sustained injury on his left hand. Then P.W.1 came to the 10 scene of offence at that time A1 attacked on that she sustained the bleeding injuries on her left hand at that time, A4 and A5 beat P.w.3 also with hands and legs indiscriminately. Then a9, A12, A13 beat P.W.3 with hands and legs indiscriminately. Then, P.W.3 joined Sattenapalli Area
Hospital. On that P.W.1 came to Police station and gave a report, her evidence does not withstand scrutiny in cross-examination as P.W.5 admits that P.W.1 is her co-sister, P>W.2 her brother-in-law, P,.W. is her
Sister-in-law and L.W.4 is the husband of P.W.3 clearly shown that all eye witnesses are closely interested family members. She further admits that a criminal case is pending against P.W.3’s son for the death of A12’s daughter and that the present complaint was lodged only after his release from jail thereby establishing strong pre-existing enmity between both sides. Significantly, P.W.5 admits that an SC/ST is also pending wherein she herself along with P.as.1 to 3 and L.W.4 are accused at the instance of A12, which blosters the defence plea that the present case is a counterblast. Although she claims that P.W.3 was admitted in the
Sattenapalli Area Hospital and that she also witnessed the assaults or seizure or weapons has been place on record to corroborate any such allegations. Her further admission that 30 to 40 persons were present at the time of the alleged incident, yet no independent witness was examined, casts serious doubt. P.W.5 also concedes that she did not state before the police that the accused beat P.WE.3, which constitutes a material improvement affecting her credibility.
18.In addition to that it is the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 9 who are showed as the direct eye witnesses to the alleged offence stated that they do not know the facts of the case and they were not examined by the police. When the P.Ws.6 to 9 denied the case of the prosecution, the learned APP declared them as hostile witness and cross examined him, 11 but nothing incriminating material could be elicited during the cross examination and P.Ws.6 to 9 denied to state before the police.
19.The evidence P.W.10, the Village Revenue Officer, does not materially strengthen the prosecution case. He states that on 27.10.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., he accompanied the SDPO, L.W.15, to the alleged scene of offence at B.C Colony, Pesapadu Village, and that in presence of the scene observation report, Ex.P6, was prepared. However, in cross-examination he admits that he had not received any written summons from the police and denies the suggestion that he did not visit the scene and that Ex.P6was prepared in the police station. The very fact that the witness admits lack of formal requisition, coupled with the defence suggestion that the report was drafted at the police station which
P.W.10 merely denied without any independent corroboration casts doubt on the reliability of the scene observation proceedings. Ex.P6 is not supported by contemporaneous documentation, independent attestors or material objects seized from the spot. In the absence of any recovery, physical evidence or corroborative testimony, the evidence of P.W.10 is formal in nature and does not advance the prosecution case in any substantial manner.
20.P.W.11, the Doctor who treated P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and
L.W.4, deposed that on 26.10.2018, he examined P.W.1, P.W.3, L..W.4 and P.W.4. He stated that the injuries found on P.W.1, P.W.3 and L.W.4 were simple in nature and caused by blunt object, and that no visible injury was found no visible injury was found on L.W.4. With respect to
P.W.4, he found contusion injuries and referred him to G.G.H., Guntur for specialized treatment. The X-ray/Radiology opinion from GGH, Guntur revealed that P.W.4 sustained both grievous and simple injuries, and all such injuries were caused by a blunt object. Thereafter, he issued wound 12 certificates, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex,P9 and Ex.P10 pertaining to P.W.1, P.W.3,
P.w.4 and L.W.4. During cross examination, he admitted that the said injuries might have been cause due fall on the ground. He further stated that the injuries were possible only by blunt objects and not by any sharp objects. He denied the suggestion that the issued Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 in a routine manner without examining the injured persons.
21.P.W.12, the Investigating Officer,deposed that on 26.10.2018 LW14 handed over the case file to him and, basing on the report, he registered the FIR in Crime No. 288/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and the FIR is marked as
Ex.P11. On27.10.2018, he visited the Area Hospital and examined PWs 1 to 5andLW4, and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence at BC Colony, Peesapadu Village, examined
P.Ws.6 to 10 and L.W.12, recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P12. Subsequently, he altered the n from 323 to 324 IPC, basing on the investigation and the orders of the SDPO, on 20.11.2018, he served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused.
After obtaining the wound certificates, he further added section 326 IPC.
Upon completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. In cross examination, he stated that he cannot say whether the motive of this case was that the daughter of A12 had eloped with
Muthukuri Yedukondalu also known as Konda and that Crime
No.250/2018 was registered in that regard. He further stated that he does not know whether the present case was foisted after the accused in that case was released on bail nor whether the Crime No.289/2018 under
Sections 354, 323, 509, 506r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)
(s),3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST(POA) Act was registered, though he admitted that he conducted investigation and filed charge sheet in that case also.
13
The learned defence counsel submitted that the same has ended in acquittal.
22.He stated that he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and L.Ws.4, 7 and 8 on 27.10.2018 and visited the scene of offence at about 10.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine the neighbours as shown in Ex.P12. He further stated that he examined L.W.4/M. Sambasiva Rao, at the scene of offence and denied the suggestion to the contrary. He also denied the suggestion that the road mentioned in Ex.P12 is a gravel road. He further admitted that except Ex.P7 to Ex.P10, he does not have any other proof for altering the section. He also admitted that he did not examine the radiologist and did not obtain any X-ray reports. He denied the suggestions that the present case is a counter-blast to the SC/ST case, that he conducted only a table investigation, and that he never visited the scene of offence or conducted any proper investigation.
23.On scrutinization of entire evidence on record, it is the version of P.W.1 that she was not present at the scene of offence and learnt from others when the alleged incident took place and further admitted that police examined her after a delay of four days which creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of her version. The absence of medical evidence supporting her allegation of a knife injury in P.W.11 deposed that the said injuries caused by blunt object which further weakens her testimony. Further all the material witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5 admitted that an earlier criminal case was registered against the son of
P.W.3 for the death of the daughter of A12, and that the present case was filed by only after the said accused was released on bail. These admissions clearly show deep rooted hostility and motive for false implication, which renders their testimonies unsafe without corroboration.
Further it is an admitted fact that certain allegations, including assault on 14
P.W.3 and use of weapons were not stated in their earlier statements, thus amounting to material improvements. Such embellishments create serious doubt regarding the credibility of their evidence.
24.Further, P.Ws.1 to 5 are all closely related and admitted that 20 to 60 persons gathered at the scene. Despite this, no independent witness was examined. On the contrary, P.Ws.6 to 9, who were cited as independent eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution and were declared as hostile. Apart from the afore said discussion it is contended by the learned counsel for accused that no such kind of independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. So when the evidences on record is looked into, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the same family members as such, they are inter related with each other. In addition to that this court relies on the judgment of our Hon’ble Apex court in Bolineedi
Venkataramaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 1 AIR 1994 SC 76
wherein the Hon’ble supreme court has held, “…However, since they are interested witnesses, their evidence was subjected to greater scrutiny and one of the tests applied is whether the specific overt acts are attributed to them so that the omnibus allegations may not be accepted so as to rule out the possibility of implicating some innocent persons. In appreciating evidence of this kind of witnesses, the courts have always considered that such of those accused to whom specific overt acts have been attributed consistently and the same is corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case, can safely be convicted…”
25. Thus, in cases where the prosecution primarily relies upon related or interested witnesses, it is essential that their version be consistent, free from material contradictions, and duly corroborated by 15 medical evidence or by surrounding circumstances. However, in the present case, as discussed earlier, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 suffers from material inconsistencies, contradictions, and lacks corroboration either from medical evidence or from any independent witness. Therefore, their testimonies, without such corroboration, cannot form a safe basis for conviction.
26.Furthermore, the medical evidence placed by the prosecution does not support the allegations made by P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.11, the Doctor who examined categorically deposed that the injuries noted were simple and caused by a blunt object. The Doctor also opined that the injuries could have been caused by a fall. He further admitted that crucial medical particulars such as the colour, and direction of the wounds were not mentioned in the medical record. The omission of these essential details substantially affects the reliability of the medical evidence. The possibility of the injuries having been caused by a fall, coupled with the lack of proper documentation of medical particulars, creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version that A1 to A13 beaten P.W.s 1 to 5 and
LW4. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular testimony of P.W.s 1 to 3 and, on the contrary, renders the prosecution case doubtful.
27.However the prosecution alleges use of knives and sticks, butno weapon was seizedand no blood-stained objects, mud samples, or physical evidence was collected from the scene. Even the scene observation report does not support the claim of a violent attack with weapons. These omission goes to the root of the prosecution case.
Further it is an admitted fact that the investigating officer i.e., P.W.12, admitted that no knife or stick was seized and no radiologist was examined and no X-ray report supporting fracture was collected and even 16 alteration of sections are not supported by material evidence. These lapses indicate a perfunctory investigation, which further weakens the prosecution case.
28.Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution and Considering the cumulative effect of contradictions, improvements, unexplained delay, hostile independent witnesses, lack of corroboration, unreliable medical support, and material omissions, At this juncture, this
Court finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bannareddy and Others v. State of Karnataka & Others , (2018) 5 SCC
790, wherein the Apex Court held that when serious and material contradictions exist in the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the
Court cannot ignore such contradictions. Rather, they must be duly considered, and if they create doubt regarding the prosecution version, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, particularly when the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
29.In addition to the above observations, it is elicited from the cross-examination all the material witnesses admitted that there is previous disputes existing between P.W.3 and the A12. While P.W.1 asserts that the incident took place on 26.10.2018, and stated that police examined her after 4 days and the prosecution has not offered any explanation for this material discrepancy. P.W.1 claims that A1 injured with knife but no such medical evidence to corroborate deadly weapon alleged to used by A1. This creates a clear inconsistency between the oral evidence and the investigation record. Further, though P.W.s.6 to 9 were projected as eye-witnesses, they admitted that they were never examined by the police during investigation. Their testimony is evidently an improvement based solely on what they reportedly heard from P.W.1, 17 thereby depriving their evidence of any independent probative value.
P.W.1 also admits that there are previous disputes i.e., death of A12’s daughter occurred due to son of P.W.3 and multiple cases are pending between their family members and the accused, which strongly indicates the possibility of false implication. Despite the alleged incident having occurred in a busy village and the said alleged offence is witnessed by nearly 60 persons as per the prosecution witnesses itself but the prosecution did not examine a single independent witness to substantiate its case. And there are many serious inconsistencies between the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5 and the material omissions in the investigation conducted by P.W.12, further undermines the prosecution version. The cumulative effect of these contradictions, inconsistencies, and absence of material particulars creates a grave doubt regarding the prosecution story and shakes the credibility of P.W.1’s testimony concerning the very genesis of the alleged occurrence. When the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to the accused. Accordingly, I answered this point against the prosecution.
30.In the result, the court found that A1 to A13 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs. 326, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. As such the all the accused are acquitted Under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property seized by P.W.12 during the course of investigation and no property marked at the time of trial, so no order thereon.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of December, 2025.
Sd/- P. Priyadarsini
I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sattenapalli 18
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITENSSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1 : M. Koteswari None P.W.2 : M. Srinivasa Rao P.W.3 : M. Appamma P.W.4 : M. Venkataramana P.W.5 : M. Venkateswaramma P.W.6 : V. Narasimharao P.W.7 : T. Satyannarayana P.W.8 : D. Yelamandaiah P.W.9 : P. Pulla Rao P.W.10 : M. Shiva KalyanBabu P.W.11 : Dr. M. Manthru Naik/Doctor P.W.12 : V. Kalesha Vali, SDPO, Sattenapalli.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1 - NIL - Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8 Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9 Ex.P6 : Scene Observation Report Ex.P7 : Wound Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P8 : Wound Certificate of P.W.3 Ex.P9 : Wound Certificate of L.W.4 Ex.P10 : Wound Certificate of P.W.4 Ex.P11 : F.I.R Ex.P12 : Rough Sketch.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
Sd/- P. Priyadarsini
I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sattenapalli