Page 1 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT
NARAYANPET.
Present by : Smt. R.M.Subhavalli, B.A., L.L.M., Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet.
Thursday, this the 5 th day of May, 2022.
Sessions Case No. 223 of 2018 .
P.R.C No.09 of 2018 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Narayanpet. Sri M. Sai Kumar, Committed by J.M.F.C., Narayanpet Cr.No.& P.S.Cr. No.15 of 2018 of PS Makthal. A1. Kampili Mallesh s/o Baswalingam, age: 35 years, caste: golla, occ: Farmer, r/o Panchalingal village of Makthal
mandal.
A2.Kampily Baswalingam s/o Kurumaiah, age; 72 years, caste; Golla, occ; Farmer, r/o Panchalingala village of Makthal mandal,
A3.Kampili Bramhaiah s/o Baswalingam, age; 39 years, caste; Golla, occ; Farmer, R/o Panchalingala village of Makthal mandal.
A4.Kampili Chennamma w/o Baswalingam, 1.Description of the Farmer, r/o Panchalingala village of AccusedMakthal mandal.
A5.Myakali Lingappa s/o Narsimulu, age: 29 years, caste: Golla, occ; Farmer, r/ob Panchalingala village of Makthal mandal.
A6.Myakali Shekhar s/o Narsimulu, age; 22 years, caste; Golla, occ; Farmer, r/o panchalingala village of Makthal
mandal.
A7.Kampili Thimmamma @ Padmavathi w/o Kamplili Narsimulu, age; 38 years, caste: Golla, occ; Coolie, r/o Panchalingala village of Makthal
mandal.
U/S 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the 2.Charges Indian Penal Code. 3.Plea of the accusedNot guilty 4.Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.
R.M.S.V.
Page 2 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
5. Sentence or orderIn the result, the A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A7 shall stand cancelled after six months. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
6.Prosecution conducted Sri Raghupathi, Addl. Public byProsecutor 7.Accused defended bySri K. Narsimlu, Advocate
This case was coming before me for final hearing on 28-04-2022 in the presence of Sri Raghupathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Narsimlu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration this Court doth delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Makthal
P.S. had filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A7 in Crime No.15 of 2018 for the offence U/sec. 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.In Nutshell the charge sheet contents are as follows :-
(i) On 12.01.2018 at 1345 hours, the complainant by name
Kummari Laxmi w/o Laxmipathi, age: 35 years, caste: Kummari, occ:
Anganvadi teacher, r/o Panchalingala village of Makthal mandal, came to
Police station and lodged a petition in which she stated that on 12.01.2018 at morning hours when she along with her husband Kummari Laxmipathi s/o
Sayanna, age: 40 years, and her aunt Manikyamma all are at present their plot in their village, meantime at about 1130 hours her Mallesh villagers 1.Kampili s/o Baswalingam and his family members 2.Kampily Baswalingam, 3.Kampili Bramhaiah, 4.Kampili Chennamma w/o Baswalingam, 5.Myakali
Lingappa s/o Narsimulu, 6.Myakali Shekhar s/o Narsimulu and Thimmamma 7.Kampili D/o Baswalingam all are came to there and picked up quarrel with them in plot issue and abused them in filthy language and beat them with
R.M.S.V.
Page 3 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. hands, the said person Kampili Mallesh beat her husband with crowbar resulted her husband sustained head injury.
(ii)On receipt of the above complaint, A. Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police,
Makthal PS registered a case in Cr.No. 15/2018 u/s 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation the A.
Venkateswarlu, SI of Police examined and recorded the statement of the defacto-complainant Kummari Laxmi and rushed to Govt. hospital, Makthal there he examined and recorded the statements of Kummari Laxmipathi and
Kummari Manikyamma, basing on their statements A. Venkateswarlu, SI of
Police altered the section of law from 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC to 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC, then he visited the scene of offence, Further secured the presence of two mediators Uppari Srinivasulu and Nadipi Narsimulu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and seized one crowbar (Gaddapara) in the presence of same mediators. Then A.
Venkateshwarlu S.I. of police examined and recorded the statements of
Desham Ashappa, and Kadali Shanker. While during the investigation is in progress on 22.01.2018 the A. Venkateswarlu SI of Police received a credible information that the accused persons has came to Panchalingala village and immediately he along with his staff proceeded to that place and apprehended the accused persons A1 and A5 and they have confessed to have committed this offence and admitted their guilty. As such affected their arrest and produced the accused persons A1 and A5 and send them to
Hon’ble Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet for judicial remand.
(iii)While the investigation is in progress on 17.04.2018
A. Venkateswarlu, S.I. of Police received a credible information that the accused persons A2 to A4, A6 and A7 were came to Panchalingal village and immediately he along with the staff proceeded to that place and apprehended the accused person and brought them to the Police station and
R.M.S.V.
Page 4 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. they also confessed to have committed this offence and admitted their guilty.
As such affected their arrest and sent them to Hon’ble Judl. Magistrate of
First Class, Narayanpet for judicial remand and the A. Venkateswarlu S.I. of
Police after receipt of Wound certificate of the defacto-complainant Kummari
Laxmi, Laxmipathi and Kummari Manikyamma and after completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet Under Section 307, 323, 504, r/w 34
Indian Penal Code against A1 to A7. Hence the charge sheet.
3.Further the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narayanpet had taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 to A7 and numbered as P.R.C
No.09 of 2018 and issue summons to A1 to A7 and afterwards committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal Dist. and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in turn the case was numbered as S.C. No.223 of 2018 and made over the same to this court for disposal.
4. On appearance of the accused A1 to A7 and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused framed charge U/Sec 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code are framed U/s.228(1) of Cr.P.C against accused A1 to A7 and same is read over and explained the same to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial the Prosecution, to establish their case adduced the evidence of PW.1 to PW.8 evidence out of 10 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and also marked MO1 on their behalf.
6.On the other side no one examined and not marked any document.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A7 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C as the offence made out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same is read over to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their
R.M.S.V.
Page 5 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. behalf.
8. Both side arguments heard: Heard.
9. Now the point for determination is that:-
1. Whether the accused A1 to A7 attempted and caused
hurt on the defacto complaint husband Laxmipathi with an
intention to murder him or not?
2. Whether the accused A1 to A7 provoked breach of peace with an intention or not?
3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused A1
to A7 under Section 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
4. To what relief?
10. Point No.1 and 2:
It is a case of attempt of murder on the defacto-complainant Kammari
Laxmi husband Laxmipathi allegedly done by the accused A1 to A7 on such attempt the defacto-complainant Laxmi, Kammari Laxmipathi and Kummari
Manikhyamma sustained injuries on them.
For establishing the acquisition of the accused A1 to A7 the prosecution adduced PWs 1 to P8 evidence out of 10 listed witnesses and marked EXs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1. The prosecution adduced the evidence of the defacto-complainant Kumarri Laxmi, who is the wife of Laxmipathi examined as PW1. The PW1 in her chief examination stated that in the year 2006 they purchased plot ,since then they are enjoying the possession and in the year 2018 herself and PW2 and PW3 went to their plot, there the accused A1 to A7 beat them and PW1 said they already planned to kill her husband, in the said beating A1 beat with crowbar on her husband head,
PW1 also said at that time PW4 came there and pacify the galata and after that they went to police station Makthal and from there they went to hospital, the Sub Inspector came to hospital and they gave complaint as in
Ex. P1. This is the contention of PW1.
11. To substantiate the PW1 evidence prosecution adduced PW.2 evidence who is husband of PW1 and who is also injured person, the PW2
R.M.S.V.
Page 6 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. stated before court that in the year 2006 they purchased a plot, since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and in the said plot they constructed zinc shed and they are residing in the said zinc shed and also maintaining cattles. The PW2 further stated that in the year 2018 middle of the months the accused A1 to A7 came and made galata with his wife and mother by demanding that the said plot belongs to them and also beat with their hands and legs and also abused in filthy language at that time he obstructed them, then the A1 by saying that IF WE KILL THIS PERSON AND
BURRIED HIM IN THE LAND, then A1 beat him with crowbar, PW2 said on that he became unconscious and said PW1 shifted him to hospital.
12.On seeing PW1 and PW2 evidence the prosecution adduced PW3 evidence who is mother of PW2 and mother-in-law of PW1. PW3 stated during her chief examination that since three years back she went her fields there A4, A7 and A2 came and beat her with regard to plot, PW3 voluntarily adds they also bet PW1 and said at the time PW2 came there, tried to rescue them, then they beat with crowbar on PW2, then Pw2 fell on ground and the
PW3 further said that the accused also stated they will buried PW2 there it self and said PW4 came there and took PW2 to hospital through auto, as PW2 was fell in an unconscious. This is the contention of PW3.
13.As seen from the evidence of PW3 the prosecution adduced the
PW4 evidence, who is brother of PW3. PW4 stated in his chief examination by admitting the relationship with the PW1 to PW3 and said that in the year 2018 January 12th, the A1 to A7 quarrelling with PW2 with regard to plot as
A1 was marking the boundaries and PW4 also said that in the said galata A1 took crowbar and beat on PW2 on that PW2 head broken, PW4 stated that he took PW2 to hospital and joined him in hospital and returned to his home.
14.Further prosecution adduced PW5 evidence, who is neighbour of
PW1 to PW3. PW5 stated that she know PW1 to PW4 as they are her neighbours and she know all the accused who are present in the court hall as
R.M.S.V.
Page 7 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. they are her villagers. PW5 said that since 10 or 15 years back herself and
PW1 to PW4 took plots, after 3 ½ years back the accused A1 stated that they taken the plots and galata took place in between the accused A1 and PW2 about the plots, at that time the accused A1 and others thrown PW1 and Pw3 on ground, at that time PW2 came and questioned all the accused why they are thrown PW1 and PW3, then the accused A1 beat PW2 at that time
Ashappa (PW4) came and rescued them and shifted PW2 to hospital.
15.On seeing PW1 to PW5 evidence the prosecution also adduced
PW6, PW7 and PW8 evidence, who are panch witnesses and officials witness, their evidence discussed wherever required.
16.Before going to appreciation of evidence, once again we observe the provision of law.
As per Sec. 307 Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by
such act, the offence shall be liable either to imprisonment for life,
or to such punishment as is here in before mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts:- When any person offending under
this section is under sentence of imprisonment, for life, he may, if
hurt is caused, be punished with death.
17.To establish the offence committed by all the accused the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:-
1. The intention to commit murder and,
2. The act done by the accused.
An attempt to commit a crime must be distinguished from an intention to commit it and from preparation made for its commission thereafter
R.M.S.V.
Page 8 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. attempted to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeded he has committed the offence.
The burden is on prosecution to prove that the accused A1 to A7 had attempted to commit the murder of PW2. When we see the PW1 to PW3 evidence they are alleging that in the year 2006 they purchased the plot from Suvarna Goud, Janardhan Goud and Ashok goud, since then they are in possession and in enjoyment the same. As per PW1 in the year 2018 her self
PW2 and PW3 went to their plot there A1 to A7 obstructed alleging that they purchased the same, but PW2 stated in different version that in the year 2006 they purchased the plot and in the said plot they constructed zinc sheet shed and they are residing in the said zinc shed and also maintaining the cattle and PW3 stated that when she went fields there A4, A7, A2 came and obstructed. From the evidence of PW1 to PW3 one thing is clear that they purchased plot in the year 2006 and the PW1 stated that they went to their purchased plot, PW3 said she went their fields there incident took place with regard to plot, but PW2 specifically said that they are residing in the disputed plot by constructing the zinc sheet shed and also maintain cattle.
Then in the year 2018 middle month the A1 to A7 came and made galata with his wife (PW1) and mother (PW3).
18.So, there is inconsistence between the PW1 to PW3 evidence that, the PW1 in her complaint specifically mentioned that, “ 12-01-2018
roju vudayam nenu na bhartha aina kummari laxmipathi S/o
Sayanna vayassu 40 samvassaralu mariyu ma attha aina
manikyamma mugguram ma gramamlo vunna plot daggara
vundaga ,” but as per Exbit P7 ( rough sketch of scene of offence) the seen of offence shown at Panchalingala Village and same was admitted by PW8 (who is Investigating Officer) and PW8 admitted that he did not examined surrounding neighbours of seen of offence and voluntarily adds there he examined neighbour by name Myakali Jayalaxmi (PW5).
R.M.S.V.
Page 9 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
(i)When we see PW5 evidence discloses that the PW1 to PW4 purchased plots in the year 2006 and after 3 ½ years back the A1 stated that they taken the plots and galata took place in between A1 and PW2 about the plots and at that time the A1 and others thrown the PW1 and PW3 on ground, at that time PW2 came and questioned them why they are thrown PW1 and
PW3, then A1 beat PW2, but PW5 fails to disclose how the A1 beat on PW2, and in which part of PW2 body sustained injury and PW5 stated at that time
PW4 came and rescued and shifted PW2 to hospital. From the evidence of
PW5 not established actually where the alleged incident taken place, who saw the incident, as per PW5 evidence on the date of incident she was in her house due to her ill-health and PW8 not examined any surrounding neighbours.
19.The motive of the present case as there is civil disputes between PW1 to PW3 and with A1 the same was admitted by PW1 and PW2, as A1 filed
Civil Suit against them on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Narayanpet vide
O.S.No.01 of 2018 pertaining to this case plot and the PW1 and PW2 stated
that they do not know whether A1 obtained injunction order against them in the said O.S. further the PW1 stated that her husband filed civil suit against
Suvarna Goud, Janardhan Goud and Ashok goud, vide O.S.No.02 of 2018. As per record the said suit is pending before this court.
20.The prosecution contended that the intention of all accused is to murder the PW2. But PW1 in her complaint mentioned that,
‘Maa gramastulu aiyna Kampili Mallesh s/o Baswalingam
mariyu athani kutumba sabyulu aiya Kampili Baswalingam, Kampili
Brahmaiah, Kampili Chennamma w/o Baswalingam, Myakali
Lingappa s/o Narsimlu, Myakali Shekar s/o Narsimulu, Kampili
Thumulamma d/o Bawswalingam andharu kalisi maa plot daggari
vachi plot maadi ani matho godava pettukoni chethulato kottuchu
bhuthu matalu thituuchu addupadina naa bhartha aiynaa
R.M.S.V.
Page 10 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
Laxmipathi pyna thelipini Kampili Mallesh gaddaparatho thalapy
kottaga thanaku raktha gayamu ainadu appudu Desham Ashappa
chusinaru ”
During her chief examination also PW1 disclosed by stating that A1 to
A7 beat them and said they already planed to kill her husband. But when we observe PW2 evidence who is injured person during his cross examination he clearly admitted that he stated for the first time before court that A1 stated as if they kill this person and buried him in the land and also stated that he did not remember whether he stated the same before the police about that
A1 if they kill the person and buried him in the land. But as per PW3 evidence who is mother of PW2 stated that PW2 fallen down on the ground when A4, A7 and A2 beat and they also stated they will buried PW2 there itself. But here PW3 fails to disclose the presence of A1 and also name of A1 at the scene of offence at the time of alleged beating. There is inconsistency about the presence of A1 at the time of incident. Further from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 they disclosed that A1 to A7 came there and A1 beat with crowbar on PW2. But PW1 to PW3 not disclosed the overt acts of each accused and as well as their presence except PW3, PW3 stated only A4, A7 and A2 by omitting the name of the A1.
When we see PW4 evidence who is direct eye witness and pacified the galata and shifted PW2 to hospital by pacifying the galata between PW1 to
PW3 and A1 to A7. But the defence sides draw the attention of this court that the said person i.e. PW4 belongs to Madiga caste and the PW1 to PW3 belongs to Kummari caste and how they related to him as stated by PW4 in his chief examination. During chief examination PW4 stated that PW1 is his daughter in law, PW2 is his son in law and PW3 is his sister. Further PW4 admitted that there is pending plot case in between A1 and PW2 and also admitted that in the said case A1 won the case against PW2 and said after marking the boundaries the A1 filed the case and A1 won the case. When
R.M.S.V.
Page 11 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. wee see PW8 evidence who is investigation officer he admitted that he did not examine any surrounding witnesses of scene offence and also stated that he does not know whether A1 filed the civil case against PW2 and said case disposed off in favour of A1 vide OS No.2 of 2018 on the file of Junior Civil
Judge Court, Narayanpet. But here PW2 did not prefer any appeal against the
said judgment passed in OS No.2 of 2018, but in contra PW2 has filed the civil suit in OS No.1 of 2018 on the file of this court against his vendors i.e.
Suvarna Goud, Janardhan Goud and Ashok Goud. PW8 specifically said that he did not secure any details pertaining to the said civil suit and also said that he does not know whether PW2 filed the civil suit on this court against
A1 and also PW8 said that he did not secure any details pertaining to the said suit. So, PW8 not done proper investigation for that it clearly establishes during his cross examination, as PW8 admitting that he did not enquire whether against PW2 there is interim orders is there in OS No.2 of 2018 and also admitted that he did not collected any documents pertaining to the property mentioned in Ex.P1 and also not enquire the said property purchased by whom, from whom, and PW8 also admitted that he did not secure any documents from PW1 pertaining to the land mentioned in Ex.P1.
As per charge sheet contents, PW8 mentioned in last para in page No.2 in charge sheet as follows:
“The complainant party purchased a plot in SY No. 277 with
located in Panchalingal village from their villager Rameshwaramma
w/o Hussainappa Goud in the years 2006 and also drafted a
document on 11.04.2006, sine the plot is in the possession of
complainant party and also they constructed a cattle shed in said
plot. Recently a dispute raised in between the compliant party and
accused persons to possess the plot, as such the accused persons Al
to A7 hatched a plan to eliminate the LW-2 (PW2), as per their plan
i.e on 12.01.2018 at morning hours when the LWs 1 to 3 (i.e. PW1 to
R.M.S.V.
Page 12 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
PW3) are present at their plot, meantime the accused persons A1 to
A7 went to there and picked up quarreled with LWs 1 to 3 and beat
the LWs 1 & 3 with hands and kicked with legs, same time at about
1130 hours when the LW-2 try to rescue the LWs 1 & 3, but the
accused A1 took a crowbar and attacked on LW-2 with crowbar
caused severe bleeding injuries over head with an intention to kill
him and the LWs 1 &3 also sustained injuries. Thus the accused
person A1 to A7 have committed an offence u/s 307, 323, 504 r/w 34
IPC.”
21.But PW8 without done any investigation as stated above and
PW8 during his cross examination how he admitted that he did not secure any document pertaining to plot in Sy.No.277 in which the A1 filed civil case as in OS No.2 of 2018 and said case won by Accused No.1 which is the land is in dispute in present. The PW8 not produced single evidence before court about the disposed of said O.S. or pending. As admitted by PW1 to PW4, the
A1 won civil case and all those details of O.S.No.1 of 2018 and OS No.2 of 2018 which is pending before this court, the PW8 why he mentioned in charge sheet as above contents without done any investigation, the pramifacie case alleged incident not established by prosecution actually PW8 registered a case against A1 to A7 u/s 324, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC, afterwards basing on PW1 and PW2 statements PW8 altered section of law from 324, 323 , 504 r/w 34 IPC to 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, but in the charge sheet contends in 3rd page mentioned as LW9 i.e., Dr. P. Kiran Kumar altered section of law. So from the evidence of PW8 he fails to establish the intention of the A1 to A7, what plan they hatched, what is the prior conspiracy of A1 to A7 to kill PW2 and their motive.
As per sec. 120-A IPC
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
R.M.S.V.
Page 13 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided
that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some
act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties
to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
From the evidence of PW8 it clearly establishes that as alleged by PW1 and PW2 that the A1 to A7 hatched a plan, but the same was not mentioned in Ex.P1 and only stated before PW8 that the accused hatched plan to kill
PW2. This it self is not sufficient to prove the accused prior concert to kill
PW2.
22.As per record PW2 filed civil case against Suvarna Goud,
Janardhan Goud and Ashok goud and said suit is pending before this court, the said suit was filed on 02-1-2018 and this alleged incident occurred on 12-01-2018. Here PW2 without preferring any appeal against judgment and decree in OS No.1 of 2018 on the file of Junior civil Judge, Narayanpet, the
PW2 filed civil case before this court and subsequently filed this criminal case this clinchingly establishing the malafide intention of PW2 and only to create fear in the minds of accused, for that within the span of 10 days he filed criminal case against A1 to A7 alleging that they conspired to kill him.
Here prosecution has to prove the intention of A1 to A7 if they succeed their attempt what benefit they will get, by proving the facts and circumstances and conduct of accused, if prosecution produced such cogent and relevant evidence, then it can be drawn the common intention of all the accused. As seen from record alleged that A1 to A7 attacked on PW2 with an intention to kill him by attacked PW2 and each accused have the intention to kill PW2 and if really the alleged beating took place the PW2 has to caused severe bleeding injuries assume for the sake of argument if 7 persons attacked on single person and beat each accused certainly inflicted a separate fist blow, but prosecution fails to prove the each accused overtacts, that too in Exbit P5, PW2 allegedly sustained two injuries on head, surprisingly PW2 not specifically disclosed on which part of his body A1 beat
R.M.S.V.
Page 14 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. with crowbar and PW1 also fails to disclose that PW4 rescued him and shifted hospital.
23.For the purpose of arguments sake as already A1 filed civil suit and same won by him against PW2, while A1 was fixing the boundaries as stated PW4 that the alleged incident took place. So it shows there is need of
PW2 to over come the case in which he filed this criminal case before this court and also as to made fear in the minds of A1 to A7 he filed this case with malafide intention and as per record the process fails to prove the intention and knowledge of A1 to A7 against PW2. From the evidence produced before the court the trustworthy of PW1 to PW3 evidence is in doubtful and their evidence not believable and they improved their version
before PW8 and the PW4 as appears to be planted witnesses as such the acts
which was allegedly conspired to commit an offence with intention by accused was not proved by the prosecution.
24.Further the prosecution has to prove the acts of the accused has to leads to cause of death, as per record the prosecution to prove the injuries of PW1 to PW3 adduced the evidence of PW7 who is Doctor, who treated
PW1 to PW3 and issued Ex.P3 to P5 (wound certificates). When we see PW7 evidence, PW7 done only first aid to PW2 allegedly as he sustained head injury with crow bar and referred PW2 to Govt. Hospital, Mahabubnagar, but as per Ex.P5 wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Makthal i.e.
PW7 and PW7 during his cross examination admitted that he did not mentioned MLC number in Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 (wound certificate of PW1 to PW3) and also admitted in Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 he did not mentioned when examination started and when it was ended. Further PW7 admitted that he did not mentioned with which weapon said injuries caused and also admitted that in
Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 he did not mentioned about referring patient to Govt.
Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Surprisingly PW7 admitted that PW1 to PW3 are the out patients. But when we see PW1 evidence she stated that her husband i.e.
R.M.S.V.
Page 15 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. PW2 took treatment in hospital for 4 days. There is no clarity in which hospital PW2 taken treatment for 4 days. As per PW7 he done only first aid on the injury of PW2. Further PW3 stated that she was taken treatment in hospital for 10 or 15 days. But as per PW7 version PW3 sustained simple injury i.e. abrasion on left elbow 1x1 cm as in Ex.P3. Before court PW3 not disclosed that she sustained injury and PW3 has not disclosed how she sustained injury, but as per Ex.P3 in 7th column due to fist, she sustained abrasion over left elbow and so it is highly imaginable for simple abrasion how PW3 taken 10 or 15 days treatment by staying in hospital. That too she never stated in her chief examination that she sustained injury on his body, further the PW1 also not disclosed that she sustained injury in the said incident.
25.The PW7 stated before court that he referred PW2 to Govt.
Hospital, Mahabubnagar from there he was referred to NIMS Hospital,
Hyderabad and also stated that they brought PW2 discharge report basing on
CT report and x-ray report he issued wound certificate of PW2 as in Ex.P5. In
Ex.P5 mentioned the injuries that is:
1. Laceration 10 X ½ CM on paraital reason and same is simple in nature.
2. Laceration 6 X ½ CM on paraital bone and same is simple in nature.
3. Laceration 15 X ½ CM on left fore arm and same is simple in nature.
4. Laceration 6 X ½ CM on left fore arm and same is simple in nature.
But the above all injuries are simple in nature, either PW7 or PW8 fails to produce CT report, x-ray report before court and also not produced MLC reports of PW2 where he under went treatment at Mahabubnagar Govt.
Hospital as well as NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. But PW7 stated basing on CT and x-ray report he gave Ex.P5 as mentioned in 10th column.
As per Section 323
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:-
R.M.S.V.
Page 16 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. “Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both”.
As per record PW1 to PW3 not disclosed about the accused how they instigates and also not disclosed whether PW2 caused bleeding injury which resulted to broken the head of PW2, as per Exbit P5, PW2 sustained 4 simple lacerated injuries. So, it means there is no serious head injury. Further PW7 during his cross examination specifically admitted that PW2 not sustained any suture injuries. Further PW7 clearly admitted that in Ex.p3 to Ex.P5 he did not mentioned the age of injury and PW7 admitted that in Ex.P5 (PW2 wound certificate) near date and time there is rewriting. As stated by PW7 he done only first aid on PW2 and there is doubt arises after observing near date and time in Ex.P5 the actual date mentioned in it as 12-11-2017, but the PW7 rewrite as 12-01-2018 in necked eye it clearly visible that the wound certificate issued on 12-11-2017, but not 12-01-2018. But with regard to date, the PW8 who is Investigation Officer who collected wound certificate of PW2 was not gave any explanation.
26.Further the PW7 examined PW1 and issued wound certificate of
PW1. PW7 during his cross examination also admitted that in Ex.P4 (wound certificate of PW1) he mentioned in col. No.2 no external injuries. So as stated by PW7 the PW1 not sustained any external injuries as well as internal injuries, but in Ex.P4 mentioned in 6th column, PW1 injury simple in nature.
There is doubt arises when PW1 not sustained any external injuries as shown in column No.2 in Ex.P4. How PW7 came to conclusion that the injuries are simple. So it all clinchingly shows that Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are prepared only for the purpose of this case. So the prosecution failed to prove the injuries of
PW1 to PW3.
R.M.S.V.
Page 17 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
27.Further the prosecution relied upon seizure of weapon seized by
PW8 at scene of offence is crow bar. As per PW8 evidence on 12-1-2018 after 1.45 P.M. and after recording statements of PW1 and PW2, PW8 visited the scene of offence at Pancha lingal village, there he secured the presence of
PW6 and Nadipi Narsimlu and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence as in Ex.P7 and PW8 also seized one crow bar as M.O.1. For proving the seizure of crow bar the prosecution produced PW6 evidence when we see PW6 evidence who is panch witness for crime details form and seizure of crowbar but the PW6 not supported the prosecution version and before court he stated that he does not know anything about the case facts and said that the police called him near the bus stand of Pancha Lingal and police obtained his signature on white paper. But PW6 identified his signature in crime details form as in Ex.P2, but stated that he does not know the contents of crime details form. Here the prosecution fails to extract from PW6 whether in his presence PW8 seized the MO1 or not. As per charge sheet as well as PW8 evidence PW6 is panch witness for crime details form as well as seizure of
M.O.1.
28.The prosecution on seeing PW6 evidence not taken any steps to produce Nadipi Narsimlu who is another panch witness for scene of offence, but prosecution blindly given up his evidence, even though PW6 not supported the prosecution version and not proved crime details form as well as seizure of crow bar. Further the prosecution not taken any steps to identify
MO1 through PW1 to PW3. As admitted by PW8, when we see PW8 evidence,
PW8 admitted that MO1 is more than 3 ½ feet height which was mentioned in form No.60 and also admitted that he did not conducted the seizure panchanama and also admitted that in Mo1 rapper he did not obtain the signature of another witness i.e. Nadipi Narsimlu and near 2nd witness signature place kept blank. So it shows only at the time of filing charge sheet, the name of Nadipi Narsimlu shown as panch witness. PW8 has
R.M.S.V.
Page 18 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. mentioned in the charge sheet that PW6 and one (LW8) Nadipi Narsimlu are the panch witnesses for crime details form, but he did not obtain the signature of said Nadipi Narsimlu on rapper affixed on M.O.1, further there is difference in height of crow bar which was produced before court compare with as mentioned in crime details form in 7th column.
“Andhadha 3 ½ feetla podavu 1 ½ inchula mandam kaligiundi oka vypu sannaga padunu inkovypu vedalpuga padunu kaligivunna inupa gaddapara swadina paruchu konynadi”.
So the prosecution produced before the court that more than 3 ½ feet height crow bar, same was admitted by PW8 and M.O.1 was not confronted through PW1 to PW3 and also through PW6. So the prosecution fails to prove the seizure of crow bar at the scene of offence.
29.As per sec. 504 IPC
Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the
peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be
likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.
In the present case in hand that in Ex.P1 the PW1 mentioned that, “12-01-2018 roju vudayam nenu na bhartha aina kummari laxmipathi S/o
Sayanna vayassu 40 samvassaralu mariyu ma attha aina manikyamma mugguram ma gramamlo vunna plot daggara vundaga, andhaja 11-30 gantalaku, Maa gramastulu aiyna Kampili Mallesh s/o Baswalingam mariyu athani kutumba sabyulu aiya Kampili Baswalingam, Kampili Brahmaiah,
Kampili Chennamma w/o Baswalingam, Myakali Lingappa s/o Narsimlu,
Myakali Shekar s/o Narsimulu, Kampili Thumulamma d/o Bawswalingam andharu kalisi maa plot daggari vachi plot maadi ani matho godava pettukoni chethulato kottuchu “bhuthu matalu thituuchu” addupadina naa bhartha aiya Laxmipathi pyna thelipini Kampili Mallesh gaddaparatho thalapy
R.M.S.V.
Page 19 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. kottaga thanaku raktha gayamu ainadu appudu Desham Ashappa chusinaru kavuna maa plot vishayamulo godavapettukoni mammalni chethulatho kotti naa bharthanu gaddaparatho kotti gayaparichina pai vyaktulapai chattareetya charya thisukonagalarani naa yokka manavi”
But PW1 to PW3 before court not disclosed the same and they never disclosed that the bleeding injury sustained by PW2, even PW2 also not specifically disclosed that he sustained bleeding injury, the PW2 stated that “then A1 beat me with crowbar on that I became unconscious”, further the PW1 to PW3 changed their version and added “as they hatched plan to kill her husband”. There is no whisper about the quarrel, but the
PW1 to PW3 said that the accused obstructed as the land belongs to them and accused beat them, but the abusive words not disclosed either in Ex.P1 or before court by PW1 to PW3. PW1 to PW3 each witness stated in their own way by exaggerated the incident by adding the word killing to PW2. Without disclosing the abusive words or abusive language which may lead to a breach of the public peace is not an offence. There must be an intentional insult, insult may be offered by words or conduct. If it is by words the words uttered must amount to something more than there vulgar abusive. If the insult of such nature that it may give provocation to a person to act on it, thereby break the public peace, then only the guilty of the offence is committed, but from the evidence of PW1 to PW4 not disclosed the abusive words which it is raises insulting PW1 and PW3. Even in Ex.P1 PW1 not disclosed how the accused insulted PW1 and PW3 and what abusive words uttered by which accused.
30.Therefore the PW8 not done proper investigation and fails to establish at what time the incident took place and how it caused to break the public peace. As per PW8 he clearly admitted that in Ex.p1 in 6th line time is added subsequently and there is no signature and also admitted that he did not mentioned from whom he find out the scene of offence place. As seen
R.M.S.V.
Page 20 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. from the evidence of PW8 he produced more than 3 ½ feet crow bar before court and he fails to identify the scene of offence from whom he came to know and also not done whether there is any civil cases pending or existing between the witnesses PW1 to PW3 and also A1 to A7 it all shows PW8 without done proper investigation simply filed the prepared charge sheet and he also admitted that in Ex.P8 [FIR] in column No.15 he did not know how
Ex.P8 transported to court and same was not mentioned there. As per charge sheet and PW1 evidence, the incident took place on 12-1-2018 as alleged 11- 30 A.M. by subsequently adding time and the Ex.P8 reached to Judl.
Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet on 19-1-2018 and in 12th column in first
para in Ex.P8 time mentioned on 12-1-2018 at 13.45 hours PW8 received complaint from PW1.
31.Here one thing has to see, as stated by PW1 immediately after incident they went Makthal Police Station. If the incident took place at 11-30
A.M. and when PW8 stated he received complaint at 01.45 P.M. with regard to delay of giving complaint occupies prominent place as there is existence of civil disputes between both parties.
32.As per Ex.P1 attributes that the incident took place at 11.30 A.M.
which was subsequently added, and there is prior civil cases are existing between both parties, here the time is essence. Assume for the sake of arguments, if 11-30 A.M. incident took place and complaint gave at 1-45 P.M.
in between 11-30 A.M. to 1-45 P.M. But PW2 stated in his chief examination that at about 4-00 P.M. police came to hospital then he gave compliant to police, either PW8 or PW1 to PW3 not disclosed any reason for delay. But as per PW1 she is working as Anganwadi Teacher and her working hours is 9-00
A.M. to 4-00 P.M. that on the date of incident PW1 went their plot at 11-40
A.M. for that there is no evidence on record. Except PW1 to PW3 saying only, neither PW1 obtained leave. Even though PW1 stated that she gave proof to the police as on the date of incident she took permission and also stated that
R.M.S.V.
Page 21 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018. Ex.P1 is scribed by her and PW1 also admitted that she did not mentioned survey number and extent and plot number. All these shows that PW1 being educated person and working as Anganwadi teacher knowing law why she did not disclosed the abusive words which was allegedly uttered by the accused. It all shows in the above facts and circumstances PW1 to PW3 with the help of PW7 and PW8 created the entire story by placing wrong M.O.1 and producing false Ex.P3 to Ex.P5. None of the offences leveled against the accused is not made out from the evidence of ocular or documentary evidence produced before court, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and it appears that within span of 9 days initiated criminal proceedings are being taken only recourse to as a weapon of harassment against accused. For proving their possession and ownership the PW1 to PW3 or PW8 not produced any proof before court. There can be no doubt there is pending civil disputes between PW2 with A1. So, the PW2 with malafide intention make the civil dispute has been given colour of criminal offence.
In such situations and given set of facts and circumstances and by relying on the “Hon’ble Supreme Court dictums” held in;
1. UMA SHANKER GOPALIKA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2005) 10 SCC 336 and
2. PARAMJEET BATRA VS. STATE OF UTTARKHAND (2013) 11 SCC 673.
33.In supra discussion the prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilty of accused A1 to A7 to bring home under purview of Sec. 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
34.In the result, the accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 307, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A7 shall stand cancelled after six months. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 5 th day of May, 2022.
R.M.S.V.
Page 22 of 22 S.C.223 of 2018.
Sd/-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
(WITNESSES EXAMINED)
FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE: -None-
PW.1: Kummari Laxmi. PW.2: Kummari Laxmipathi. PW.3: Kummari Manikyamma PW.4: Ashappa. PW.5: M. Jayalaxmi. PW.6: U. Srinivasulu. PW.7: Dr. Kiran Kumar. PW.8: A. Venkateswarlu SI of Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Signature of PW6 in crime details form. Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW3. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P5: Wound certificate of PW2. Ex.P6: Alteration memo. Ex.P7: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P8: F.I.R.
FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECT
M.O.1: Crow bar.
Sd/-
Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet.
R.M.S.V.