APWG170016552023
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: TANUKU.
PRESENT: P.V.Naga Ranjit Kumar,
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku.
Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026
Calender Case No.774 of 2023
Between :
State :: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station.…Complainant.
and
1)Dangeti Nageswara Rao, S/o.Veeraswamy, Aged 50 years, Door No.3-63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal.
2)Dangeti Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 22 years, Door No.3-63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal.
3)Dangeti Veera Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 45 years, Door No.3-63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal.…Accused.
This case came up before me for final hearing on 06-05-2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State / Complainant and of Sri K.N.Subrahmanyam,learnedCounsel for Accused Nos.1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station filed final report against Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.71/2023 of their Police
Station for the offences punishable U/Secs.323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.).
2. The gravamen of the prosecution is that…
(i) L.W.1, a resident of Kakaraparru Village, Peravali
Mandal, presently residing at Eluru, and L.Ws.2 to 5, who are her husband,
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
father-in-law, cousin brother, and elder maternal aunt respectively, are the victims in the present case. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are residents of
Kakaraparru Village, wherein Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the son and wife of
Accused No.1. The accused are closely related to L.W.1, being her parents and younger brother.
(ii) Due to longstanding family and property disputes between L.W.1 and the accused, on 29-04-2022, L.W.1, along with her husband and in-laws, visited the house of the accused at Kakaraparru
Village with a view to settle the disputes. L.Ws.4 and 5 also accompanied them in support of L.W.1. During the said visit, a quarrel ensued in front of the house of the accused, in the course of which Accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly assaulted L.Ws.1 to 5 with their hands and criminally intimidated them with dire consequences.
(iii) Thereafter, on 08-04-2023, L.W.1, along with the other victims, approached Peravali Police Station and lodged a report regarding the incident. Based on the said report, L.W.10 registered a case in Crime
No.71/2023 for the offences punishable U/Secs.324, 323, 354 (B), and 506 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. on 08-04-2023 at about 08-30 PM and took up investigation.
(iv) During the course of investigation, Sections 324 and 354 (B) of I.P.C. were deleted, as it was found that the accused had assaulted the victims only with hands and the allegation regarding outraging the modesty of L.W.5 was not substantiated. Accordingly, L.W.10 filed a memo
before this Court to that effect.Subsequently, L.W.11 / Sub-Inspector of
Police, Peravali Police Station verified the investigation done by L.W.10 and found it on correct lines, and took up the investigation and on completion of investigation he laid final report in this case against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/Secs.323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
(v) Upon filing of the final report by L.W.11 by deleting the
Sections 324 and 354 (B) of I.P.C., this Court issued notice to the Defacto
Complainant, to record the objection of Defacto Complainant, if any, on
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
deletion of the Sections 324 and 354 (B) of I.P.C. Even, on receipt of the notice, the Defacto Complainant had not appeared before this Court to record the objections. Hence, this Court passed orders on 26-08-2023 for taking cognizance for the offences punishable U/Secs.323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
3. This Court took cognizance for the offences U/Secs.323 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and issued summons to the
Accused Nos.1 to 3.
4. On appearance of Accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.).
5. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C.
by explaining the substances of acquisitions for the offences punishable
U/Secs.323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. in Telugu language, for which, they denied their involvement in the said offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, in support of the case of prosecution, prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.10 and closed their evidence.
7. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel
for Accused Nos.1 to 3.
9. At this juncture, while preparing judgment, this Court observed that charges were not framed for the offences U/Secs.324 and 354 D of
I.P.C., even though prima-facie case made out for the said offences.
Therefore, this Court sumotto reopened the case for framing of additional charges.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
10. As such, Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.239 of
Cr.P.C. and the substances of accusation stated in vernacular language i.e., Telugu, charges reframed against Accused No.1 for the offences
U/Secs.354 B, 323, 323, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.; against
Accused No.2 for the offences U/Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.; and against Accused No.3 for the offences U/Secs.323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. read over and explained to them in vernacular language i.e., Telugu, for which, they denied and claimed to be tried.
11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused filed a memo stating that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 that was already recorded may be taken into consideration, and the said memos were recorded. Therefore, this Court felt that the evidence already adduced and the examination U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. already done during summons procedure is taken on record.
12. Heard both sides.
13. Now, the points for determination are… (1) Whether Accused No.1 committed the offences U/Secs.354 B, 323, 323, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
(2) Whether Accused No.2 committed the offences U/Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. ?
(3) Whether Accused No.3 committed the offences U/Secs.323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C. ?
(4) To what order ?
P O I N T Nos.1 to 3 :-
14. In order to establish an offence U/Sec.324 of I.P.C., the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused voluntarily caused hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing,
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal. The gravamen of Section 324 of I.P.C. lies not merely in the act of causing hurt, which is the baseline for Sec.323 of I.P.C., but in the aggravated nature of the means employed.
15. To prove the same prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11. All the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 resailed from the version of prosecution. The prosecution’s case majorly rests on the testimony of P.W.7 / Dangeti
Phaneendra, P.W.8 / Dangeti Venkata Laksmi, who are the victims and an injured witness. P.W.9 / R.Sambasiva Rao, who is the eye witness. It is a well-settled principle in the appreciation of evidence that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in the eyes of the law. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.Vs.Naresh, “The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence.”
16. P.W.7, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that about four years prior to his evidence, P.W.1, along with P.W.2 and her in-laws, came to the house of accused No.1 situated at Kakarparu Village. He stated that his house is adjacent to the house of Accused No.1. At that time, while he was present in his house, he noticed Accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulting the in-
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
laws of P.W.1 with their hands. On hearing their cries, he, along with his parents, came out of the house.
17. P.W.7 further deposed that when he and his mother attempted to rescue the victims, Accused No.2 assaulted him on his head with the wooden handle of a cot, causing injuries. He further stated that when his mother, P.W.8, approached the scene to intervene, Accused No.1, with an intention to disrobe and humiliate her, caught hold of and pulled her saree.
Thereafter, Accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly threatened P.W.1, P.W.2, and her in-laws with dire consequences.
18. He further stated that after sustaining injuries, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Tanuku, for treatment, and thereafter referred to
Government General Hospital, Eluru, for better treatment.
19. The testimony of P.W.7 finds substantial corroboration from
P.W.8 / Dangeti Venkata Lakshmi and P.W.9 who is the father-in-law of
P.W.1 and from their cross examination no significant information is elucidated to discredit their testimony.
20. Thus, as per the unshaken testimony of P.W.7, P.W.8 and the same was corroborated by P.W.9, this Court safely concludes that Accused
No.2 beat P.W.7 on his head and Accused No.1 beat P.W.8 with his hands and since there is no incriminating circumstance against Accused No.3 and the only allegation is that she threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 to death and when P.Ws.1 and 2 contradicted the same no case made out against
Accused No.3.
21. The essential ingredients that constitute an offence U/Sec.324 of I.P.C. include the voluntary causing of hurt and the use of specific categories of weapons or means. The distinction between Section 323 and
Section 324 is predicated entirely upon the instrument used to inflict the injury. While Section 323 deals with "simple hurt" caused by means not categorized as dangerous, Section 324 addresses hurt caused by instruments likely to cause death or categorized explicitly by the statute. In the instance of a wooden stick, which is the alleged weapon in the case at
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
hand, the Court must evaluate whether such an object, in the manner of its use and its physical characteristics, can be classified as an instrument likely to cause death.
22. The prosecution has burden of proving these ingredients. This involves not only the oral testimony of witnesses, but also the corroboration provided by medical evidence and the production of the weapon of offence where possible. In the present case, the primary allegation is that Accused
No.1 assaulted P.W.7 with a wooden stick on the head. The analysis must therefore travel through the testimony of the injured witness / P.W.7, the corroborating eyewitness / P.W.8 and P.W.9, but no medical evidence is produce to substantiate their testimony by the prosecution.
23. The value of medical evidence lies in its ability to provide objective corroboration. When the location and nature of injuries found by the Doctor match the description of the assault given by the witnesses, the credibility of the oral version is immensely strengthened. Since the details of wooden stick used was not even properly explained by the prosecution witnesses and the same was not seized and not corroborated by medical evidence, this Court safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged wooden stick used falls under the category of dangerous weapon which likely to cause death, as such, Section 324 will not attract.
24. The learned counsel for defense argued that P.W.1 to P.W.6, who were cited as eyewitnesses in the charge sheet, did not support the prosecution, hence conviction cannot be granted. It is a settled principle that the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely effaced from the record. The Court can still rely on those parts of their testimony that support the prosecution case, and more importantly, the hostility of some witnesses does not necessitate the rejection of the entire prosecution case if other reliable evidence exists.
25. In Indian criminal jurisprudence, it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that matters. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
required for the proof of any fact. Conviction can safely be based on the testimony of a single, wholly reliable witness, especially an injured one whose presence is established beyond doubt. The hostility of P.W.1 to
P.W.6, which often occurs due to local pressures, fear, or a desire to avoid involvement in legal proceedings, does not negate the stamped testimony of P.W.7 and the corroborative testimony of P.W.8 and P.W.9. The core of the prosecution’s case remains unshaken by their silence.
26. The most critical legal issue in the present case is whether the evidence supports a conviction U/Sec.324 of I.P.C. As stated at the outset,
Section 324 requires the use of a dangerous weapon or means. The prosecution’s case is that the injuries were caused by a stick. However, the investigation suffers from a significant lacuna: the alleged stick was never seized, and it was never produced before the Court.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts have held that while the non-recovery of a weapon is not always fatal to a case of assault, it becomes an important factor when the court must determine the nature of the weapon for the purpose of sentencing
U/Sec.324 or 326 of I.P.C. A wooden stick is not by itself a dangerous weapon unless its dimensions, weight, and the manner of its use suggest that it is likely to cause death. In the absence of the weapon’s production:
(1) The court cannot examine the stick to determine if it was a heavy lathi or a thin twig.
(2) The doctor was not shown the weapon to opine whether the specific injuries found were likely to be caused by that particular instrument.
(3) There is no description in the evidence regarding the length or thickness of the stick.
28. In the absence of such details, a reasonable presumption must be drawn in favor of the accused that the instrument was not of a dangerous variety. Judicial precedents, including Om Prakash SahuVs.
State of Assam, emphasize that where the allegation is the use of a
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
dangerous weapon, it is the prime duty of the prosecution to produce it; otherwise, the charge should be downgraded from Section 324 to Section 323 of I.P.C.
29. In this case, the core evidence i.e., the consistent testimonies of an injured witness (P.W.7) and P.W.8 and a natural eyewitness (P.W.9) is enough to survive these lapses. While the investigative failure to produce the weapon prevents a conviction for the aggravated offence U/Sec.324, it does not demolish the fact that an assault occurred and simple hurt was caused.
30. The final requirement for the Court is to determine if the accused acted with a common intention. Section 34 of I.P.C. creates vicarious liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. Common intention implies a pre- arranged plan or a prior meeting of minds, which can be formed even on the spur of the moment.
31. The conduct of the accused in this case provides ample evidence of such a common intention:
32. The existence of common intention on the part of all the accused can be clearly inferred from the sequence of events and their conduct before, during, and after the occurrence. The evidence on record demonstrates that all the accused initially assaulted P.W.1, later since
P.Ws.7 and 8 were intervened, the focus turned towards them. Their joint presence at the scene at the relevant time is not in dispute and stands reinforced by the testimony of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9. Such joint arrival is not a mere coincidence, but constitutes the foundational circumstance indicating that all the accused were acting in concert.
33. It is further evident that all the accused initially directed their aggression towards P.W.1 and her family members. The evidence of
P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 discloses that when they questioned the accused,
Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted them, thereby exhibiting a shared intent at the inception of the incident itself. This commonality of purpose at the initial
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
stage provides a clear indication that their actions were not independent but were guided by a unified objective.
34. The conduct of the accused assumes greater significance when P.W.8 intervened in an attempt to rescue P.W.7. At that juncture, all the accused simultaneously shifted their focus towards P.W.7 and P.W.8.
The subsequent assault carried out by the accused further fortifies the existence of common intention. All the accused actively participated in the attack, two using hands and the other allegedly using a stick, thereby jointly inflicting injuries upon P.W.7 and P.W.8. The simultaneous and coordinated nature of the assault leaves no room for doubt that all were acting in furtherance of a common intention to cause hurt.
35. Lastly, the conduct of the accused after the incident also lends support to this inference. They sought 10 months time at the Police Station to return the Gold and Silver ornaments to P.W.1.
36. These facts collectively lead to the irresistible inference that the assault was carried out in furtherance of their common intention. U/Sec.34, it is immaterial whose blow caused the specific injury; all are equally liable for the collective criminal act.
37. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the specific ingredients of Section 324 of
I.P.C. Specifically, the failure to seize and produce the alleged weapon (stick) or to provide its description makes it impossible to hold that a "dangerous weapon" was used. The prosecution has, however, established beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.7 and P.W.8.
The testimony of the injured witness (P.W.7), (P.W8) is credible, consistent, and “stamped” by reliable corroboration from P.W.9 a natural witness.
38. Therefore, while the accused cannot be convicted U/Sec.324 of
I.P.C., they are liable for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
39. The prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt. In view of the finding that the nature of the weapon was not established as “dangerous”, the conviction is recorded under the appropriate section.
40. Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as… (1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may he convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
41. Thus, since prosecution not succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of Section 324 of I.P.C. but only proved the hurt caused to P.W.7 and P.W.8 in the hands of Accused Nos.1 and 2.
The conviction cannot be given to major offence of Section 324 of I.P.C., but only conviction can be given to minor offence of Section 323 of I.P.C.
42. In view of the afore said reasons it can be held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.323 of I.P.C.
43. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby found guilty and are convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.
towards P.W.7, so also for the offence U/Sec.323 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.
towards P.W.8.
44. Section 354 B of I.P.C. which reads as…
Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.To attract
Section 354 B of I.P.C., prosecution must prove:
(1) Victim must be a woman
The person against whom the act is committed must be a woman.
(2) Assault or use of criminal force by the accused
The accused must have assaulted the woman or used criminal force against her.
(“Criminal force” is defined U/Sec.350 of
I.P.C..) (3) Intention to disrobe or compel her to be naked
The assault or criminal force must be with the intention of:
a. disrobing her, or b. compelling her to be naked, wholly or partly, by removing or attempting to remove her clothes.
(4) Mens rea / intention
The intention to disrobe must exist at the time of the act. Mere physical contact or ordinary assault is not sufficient unless such intention is proved.
45. On perusing the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9, they themselves stated that when accused are beating P.W.7 when she intervened in between Accused No.1 pulled her saree in the said tussle.
Thus, the Accused No.1 has no intention to disrobe P.W.8 mere pulling saree in an assault will not attract the offence U/Sec.354 B of I.P.C., as
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
such, the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients of offence
U/Sec.354 B of I.P.C. So also prosecution failed to prove in the said assault, the Accused No.1 has knowledge or intention to outrage her modesty.
46. Coming to offence U/Sec.506 of I.P.C., the case of P.W.7 and
P.W.8 is that they threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 to death, contrary to that P.W.1 and P.W.2 resailed from the version of prosecution and testified that
Accused Nos.1 to A3 never threatened them to death, as such, Section 506 of I.P.C. not made out against the Accused Nos.1 to 3.
P o i n t No.4 :-
47. In view of the discussion in Point Nos.1 to 3, this Court ordered as follows…
In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. against P.W.7 and P.W.8 and accordingly, they are convicted U/Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Accused
No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.354 B and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.; the Accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.; and the Accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.3 shall stands in force for a period of Six (6) months
U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C and that he shall appear before the Appellate
Court in the event of his receiving summons within Six (6) months from today.
Typed to my dictation, directly on Computer by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- P.V.N.Ranjit Kumar,
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku.
48. For hearing on quantum of sentence, dated 11-05-2026
49. Both counsel present. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were present.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
50. Accused Nos.1 and 2 present and they were explained that they found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of I.P.C., for which, they can be sentenced an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one (1) year or with fine which may extend to ₹.1,000/- or with both.
51. When the Accused No.1 was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is aged 53 years and suffering from heart complaint and he is the first time offender, he is the sole bread earner of his family. Therefore, he prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
52. When the Accused No.2 was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he is aged 25 years, and he is sole issue to his parents and he is the first time offender, he is the sole bread earner of his family. Therefore, he prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
53. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were informed about their right of appeal to prefer against the Calender and Judgment. In the present matter even
Accused Nos.1 and 2 has initially no intention to cause hurt to P.W.7, P.W.8 in the heat of passion they committed the said offence which is a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, after balancing the mitigating circumstances with the aggravating circumstances this Court intends that awarding maximum punishment is not desirable and imposing fine alone will meets ends of justice.
54. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict / Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to a fine of ₹.1,000/- each U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. towards P.W.7 they further sentences to a fine of ₹.1000/- each U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. towards P.W.8. In case of default of payment of fine, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one (01) week.
Typed to my dictation, directly on Computer by Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- P.V.N.Ranjit Kumar,
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1::Rayapudi Rani. P.W.2::Rayapudi Veera Babu. P.W.3::Kapaka Papa Rao. P.W.4::Kapaka Durga Rao. P.W.5::Yalla Surya Prakash. P.W.6::Addala Srinivasa Rao. P.W.7::Dangeti Phaneendra. P.W.8::Dangeti Venkata Lakshmi. P.W.9::Rayapudi Sambasiva Rao. P.W.10::T.Prasada Rao, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station. P.W.11::M.Surya Bhagavan, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Iragavaram Police Station.
FOR DEFENCE : None.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1/08-04-2023:Signature of P.W.1 on the Report given to the Police. Ex.P.2/08-04-2023:Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3/08-04-2023: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4/09-04-2023: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.5/09-04-2023: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.6/09-04-2023: Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.7/09-04-2023: Report given by P.W.1 to the Police. Ex.P.8/08-04-2023: Original F.I.R. in Crime No.71/2023 of Peravali Police Ex.P.9/08-04-2023: Station. Rough sketch. Ex.P.10/ --:
FOR DEFENCE : Nil. Id/- P.V.N.R.K.,
I A.C.J. (J.D.),
Tanuku.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
// True Copy //
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku.
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT
Calender Case No.774/2023 tried by the I Additional Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Tanuku, West Godavari District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of offence:29-04-2022 Date of Report:08-04-2023 Taken on file:26-08-2023 Released on bail: -- Commencement of Trial:14-05-2025 Close of Trial:06-05-2026 Date of Judgment:11-05-2026 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses, delay occurred.
Name of the Complainant :
State :: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali P.S.
Name of the Accused:
1)Dangeti Nageswara Rao, S/o.Veeraswamy, Aged 50 years, Door No.3- 63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal.
2) Dangeti Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 22 years, Door No.3-63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal.
3) Dangeti Veera Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 45 years, Door No.3-63/A, Kakaraparru Village, Peravali Mandal. Offences :U/Secs.354 B, 323, 323, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Finding :Found guilty. Sentence of Order:
In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. against P.W.7 and P.W.8 and accordingly, they are convicted U/Sec.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Accused
No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.354 B and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.; the Accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.; and the Accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail
C.C.No.774 of 2023 I Additional Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court, T A N U K U.
bonds of Accused No.3 shall stands in force for a period of Six (6) months
U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C and that he shall appear before the Appellate
Court in the event of his receiving summons within Six (6) months from today.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to a fine of ₹.1,000/- each
U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. towards P.W.7 they further sentences to a fine of ₹.1000/- each U/Sec.323 of I.P.C. towards P.W.8. In case of default of payment of fine, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one (01) week.
Sd/- P.V.N.Ranjit Kumar,
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (Through Compact Disk).
// True Copy //
I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tanuku.