1 of 35
SC No.231/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
AT :: KARIMNAGAR..
Present: Smt. R.Sreelekha, Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
Tuesday, the 27th day of August, 2024
SESSIONS CASE NO. 231 OF 2022
(On committal made by Ms. Srinija Kohirkar, Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, FAC: I-
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, vide PRC
No.27/2022 dated 16.11.2022) Name of the Complainant::The Circle-Inspector of Police, Choppadandi. (Cr. No.84/2022 of P.S., Gangadhara)
Name of the Accused::Ankamalla Kankaiah, S/o. Durgaiah, Age 45 years, SC- Gosangi, R/o. Venkataiahpalli V/o. Gangadhara Mandal.
Charge::U/Sec 452 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.
Plea of the Accused::Not guilty
Finding of the Court::Found guilty
Sentence or Order::Theaccused is found guilty for the offences under Section 452 IPC and 307 IPC and he is convicted accordingly under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default of payment of fine,toundergoSimple 2 of 35
SC No.231/2022
Imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence under Section 452 IPC. Theaccusedis further convicted for the second charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC for causinginjurytoNallala Anil/P.W.3 and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.
The accused is further convicted for the third charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injury to Nallala Pushpa/P.W.2 and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month. Total fine amount is Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). All the substantive sentences shall shall run concurrently. The remand period of the accused from 30.05.2022 to 27.08.2022 andfrom06.01.2024to 27.02.2024 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O’s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution conducted by::Sri G. Laxman,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
Accused defended by::Sri A.Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused.
3 of 35
SC No.231/2022
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri A.Srinivas, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Circle-Inspector of Police, Choppadandi, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 452, 307 of
Indian Penal Code in Crime No.84/2022 of P.S., Gangadhara.
2.The facts of the case in brief as per charge sheet is that on 29.05.2022 at 16.15 hours P.W.1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that about one year back quarrel took place in between his wife Bhoodavva and the wife of Ankamalla Kankaiah/accused with regard to place of the cow dung heap, at that time his son/P.W.3 admonished the accused and his wife Sharadha, since then the accused grew angry on P.W.3, that with an intention to kill him, on 28/29.05.2022 at night hours when his son/P.W.3 and daughter-in- law/Pushpa/P.W.2 slept on the terrace of their house, at about 01.30 hours P.W.3 made hues and cries, on hearing the same P.W.1 woke up, went to the upstairs of the building, there he saw the accused holding one iron rod and beating his son with the iron rod, on seeing P.W.1, the accused escaped, that P.W.3 sustained bleeding injuries and cut injuries due to iron rod, that P.W.3 fell in pool of blood, that P.W.1 thought his 4 of 35
SC No.231/2022
son died. The accused also tried to kill P.W.3 and found knife cut would injuries on her head, that immediately, P.W.1 made hues and cries, on hearing the same P.W’s 4 to 6 came to him, that as P.W.6 was a RMP doctor, he examined P.W.3 by holding his hand and found that P.W.3 was breathing, immediately they shifted P.W’s 3 and 2 in 108 ambulance to Karimnagar for their treatment. P.W.1 further stated that due to previous enmity in mind, the accused with an intention to kill P.W’s 2 and 3 bet with iron rod and knife, finally P.W.1 requested to take necessary action. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, L.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.84/2022 under Section 307 IPC and took up the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and informed the incident over phone to P.W.11. Later P.W.11 took up further investigation, during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of panchas P.W.8 and L.W.10, observed the scene of offence and prepared crime details form by drawing the sketch map and seized knife/M.O.2 which is available at the scene of offence before the same panchas. Later P.W.11 visited Sai
Hospital, Karimnagar where the injured P.W’s 2 and 3 were being treated, examined and recorded their statements at the hospital. On 30.05.2022, on reliable information P.W.11 rushed to the outskirts of
Islampur Village, apprehended the accused near the bridge leading from 5 of 35
SC No.231/2022
Karimnagar to Jagtial at 13.00 hours, on interrogation the accused disclosed his name as Ankamalla Kankaiah and confessed to have committed the offence, that P.W.11 secured the presence of P.W.9 and
L.W.12 to act as panchas for confession panchanama of the accused, held confession,recovered iron rod/M.O.1 along with bag which is concealed by the accused in the tree bushes before the same panchas under cover of panchanama. Later P.W.11 brought the arrested accused to police station at 15.00 hours, effected his arrest and completed the formalities of arrest, later on 04.06.2022 P.W.11 visited Venkatiahpalli
Village examined and recorded the statements of P.W’s 4 to 7 and
L.W.4/Nallala Buchavva. P.W.10 who treated P.W’s 2 and 3 issued medical certificates opining that P.W.2 and P.W.3 received simple injuries and grievous injuries. After completion of entire investigation
P.W.11 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 307 IPC.
3.The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, FAC: I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Karimnagar, took cognizance of the offence under Section 452, 307 IPC against the accused and registered the same as PRC
No.27/2022 and after following the procedure prescribed by law, furnished copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 6 of 35
SC No.231/2022
Cr.P.C., to the accused, she has committed the case by an Order to the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar, later the Hon’ble Sessions Court
in turn registered as S.C. No.231/2022 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused before this Court and on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, initially two charges were framed on 1.2.2023, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, when the case was at the stage of arguments, on perusal of the entire material on record, this
Court was of the opinion that the charges were framed inadvertently, as such three new charges were framed on 24.06.2024 in the place of old charges, contents of the same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty. The learned APP reported no further evidence.
5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W’s 1 to 11, out of 15 listed witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P6 and M.O’s 1 and 2. The evidence of remaining witnesses was given-up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7 of 35
SC No.231/2022
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are explained to him, for which he denied the same.
The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Written arguments filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are received.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the oral and documentary evidence, the guilt of the accused is proved, as such the accused may be convicted. On the other hand, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused submitted that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and that h e may be acquitted.
9.Now the points for determination are:
1.Whether on the intervening night of 28.05.2022/29.5.2022 at 1.30 hrs at Venkataiahpalli village of Gangadhara Mandal, the accused committed house trespass by entering into the house of PW1 and attacked PW3 with an intention to kill him and in that process, also caused injuries to PW2 with an intention to kill her, as she intervened to rescue her husband/PW3?
8 of 35
SC No.231/2022
2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 452 and 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT NO.1:-
10.P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant and father of P.W.3 deposed in his chief examination that about two years back, in the morning hours a quarrel took place between his wife and the wife of the accused at dung heap of their village, by bearing in mind, when P.W’s 2 and 3 were sleeping on the terrace of their building, during night hours at about 01.00 a.m. the accused went to terrace with one rod and knife and bet P.W.3 with rod on his forehead and left hand, meanwhile P.W.2 woke up, then the accused bet her with rod on the back side of her head, due to which P.W’s 2 and 3 received severe bleeding injuries, that on hearing noise of P.W.2, he rushed to the place of incident, by that time the accused was fleeing away, that he noticed the blood on the terrace,
P.W.3 was fallen on the ground, the accused fled away on the ground that P.W.3 might have died. P.W.1 further deposed that then he raised hue and cries, by hearing his noise P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 came there and shifted P.W.2 and P.W.3 to the private hospital, Karimnagar in 108 ambulance, that after admitting P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the hospital, he went to Police Station, Gangadhara and lodged report. Ex.P1 is the report. He further deposed that the above incident took place about 11 9 of 35
SC No.231/2022
moths back, that after lodging of Ex.P1 report, the police examined and recorded his statement.
11.In his cross-examination by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused, P.W.1 deposed that on the date of alleged incident, he was alone present in his house, that there was no compound wall around his house. He denied that one Durgaiah who is his relative adopted the accused while the accused was aged about 10 years. He further denied that the accused did not beat P.W.2 and 3 with rod, He also denied that
Durgaiah is his agnate and that in order to get the property of said
Durgaiah, they lodged a false report against the accused and that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged incident. He admitted that the at the time of alleged incident there was dark.
12.P.W.2 who is the injured and daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and wife of
P.W.3 deposed that on 28.05.2022, at about 10.00 pm she along with her husband/P.W.3 slept on the terrace of their house, that on the same day night at about 01.30 am, the accused came with rod and knife and bet P.W.3 on the middle of his head, also on his right hand with rod, by hearing noise of P.W.3 she woke up and tried to intervene, upon which the accused also bet her with rod on back side of her head and on her right hand little finger, that due to beating of accused, she along with 10 of 35
SC No.231/2022
P.W.3 received severe bleeding injuries. P.W.2 further deposed that after beating she raised hue and cries, by hearing noise, P.W.1 came there, by noticing P.W.1, the accused fled away, that by hearing noise, P.W.4,
P.W.5 and P.W.6 came there and shifted her and P.W.3 to the private hospital i.e., Chanda Neuro and Trauma Care Center, Karimnagar in 108 ambulance. P.W.2 further deposed that in the said hospital she was admitted as inpatient for about 6 days, whereas P.W.3 was admitted in the said hospital as inpatient for about 8 days, that the accused attacked on them in order to kill them.
13.In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused,
P.W.2 deposed that on the date of alleged incident, P.W.1 was inside their house, whereas she and P.W.3 was sleeping on the terrace of their building. She deposed that one and half year prior to the present alleged incident, a quarrel took place between her mother-in-law by name
Nallala Bhudamma and wife of the accused. She admitted that at the time of alleged incident there was dark. She denied that at the time of alleged incident, there was dark, as such there is no possibility to identify the person, who attacked on them. She further denied that they lodged a false report against the accused in order to grab the property of
Durgaiah and Gangavva. She deposed that there was no compound wall 11 of 35
SC No.231/2022
on two sides of their house and only one side there was a compound wall.
14.P.W.3 who is another injured and son of P.W.1 and husband of
P.W.2 deposed that on 28.05.2022 at about 09.00 pm he along with his wife/P.W.2 slept on the terrace of their house, that on the same day night at about 02.00 am, the accused came and bet him with rod on his left side forehead, also on the parietal region of his head, and also on his right hand, that thereafter the accused bet P.W.2 with rod on her head, due to which blood oozed. P.W.3 further deposed that by hearing noise,
P.W.1 came there, by noticing P.W.1, the accused fled away, that the accused left the knife at the place of the incident, that by receiving information, P.W.4 and P.W.6 came there and shifted him and P.W.2 to the private hospital i.e., Chanda Neuro and Trauma Care Center,
Karimnagar in 108 ambulance. He deposed that in the said hospital
P.W.2 was admitted as inpatient for about 5 days, whereas he was admitted in the said hospital as inpatient for about 6 days, that the accused attacked on them by bearing previous disputes in mind.
15.In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused,
P.W.3 deposed that on the date of alleged incident, P.W.1 was inside their house, whereas, he and P.W.2 were sleeping on the terrace of their building. He admitted that prior to the present alleged incident, quarrel 12 of 35
SC No.231/2022
took place between his mother and wife of the accused on two or three occasions. He deposed that there was no compound wall around his house. He admitted that at the time of alleged incident there was dark.
He denied that on 28.05.2022, at 02.00 am the accused never came to them and he never bet him with rod, by hearing noise, P.W.2 did not wake up and she did not try to rescue him, upon which the accused never beat P.W.2 with rod. He further denied that they lodged a false report against the accused in order to grab the property of Durgaiah and
Gangavva, who are his relatives.
16.P.W.4 deposed that about one year back during summer season, during night hours P.W.1 slept inside his house, whereas P.W’s 2 and 3 slept on the terrace of the building, that he slept in his house, that on the same day night, at about 01.00 am to 01.30 am, L.W.4/Nallala
Buchavva came to his house and woke him up and informed that some quarrel was taking place on the terrace of the building of P.W.2, that immediately, he went to the house of P.W.2, by that time the accused was getting down from the terrace of the house of P.W.2 with iron rod, that on noticing the same he called P.W.6 to the house of P.W.2. He further deposed that thereafter, he called the Sarpach of their village to the house of P.W.2, that after arrival of their Village Sarpanch, he made a phone call to 108 ambulance as well as to the police, that he shifted 13 of 35
SC No.231/2022
P.W’s 2 and 3 in 108 ambulance to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, where the doctor advised to shift P.W’s 2 and 3 to private hospital for better treatment, upon which, he took them to Sai Chanda Neuro Hospital,
Karimnagar, that after admission of P.W’s 2 and 3 in the said hospital, he went away.
17.In his cross-examination, P.W.4 deposed that he do not know whether Durgaiah was issue-less, as such he adopted the accused. He further deposed that he do not know in whose name the house of
Durgaiah is standing. He denied that he has not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement before the police, that he took P.W’s 2 and 3 to
Government Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, from there to Sai Chanda Neuro
Hospital, Karimnagar. He further denied that at the time of alleged incident, there was dark, as such there is no chance to identify the person who was getting down from the terrace.
18.P.W.5 deposed that about one year back after returning from their work to house, they had dinner and slept in her house along with P.W.4, that during midnight in between 01.00 am to 01.30 am, L.W.4/Nallala
Buchavva came and knocked the door of her house, then they woke up and opened the door, that L.W.4 informed her that some quarrel was going on the terrace of the house of P.W.1, that immediately, she rushed to the house of P.W.2, thereafter her husband i.e., P.W.4 came to the 14 of 35
SC No.231/2022
house of P.W.2. She further deposed that after her arrival, she noticed that P.W’s 2 and 3, so also accused coming down from the terrace of the building of P.W.2, that when she enquired P.W.3 as to what happened, on that P.W.3 told her the accused bet him, that immediately she went to the house of P.W.6, who is a RMP doctor and informed about the above incident, then P.W.6 in turn informed the Sarpanch of their village by name Megha Raju/P.W.7, immediately, P.W.7 rushed to the house of
P.W.1 and informed the police and 108 ambulance. She further deposed that after arrival of ambulance, P.W.4 shifted P.W’s 2 and 3 in 108 ambulance to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar.
19.In her cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that P.W.1 is his relative, that Bekyam Durgaiah and Gangavva are also her relatives.
She denied that as on the date of alleged incident, there was dark, as such she has not identified the persons who were present. She deposed that the police did not seize any material at the house of P.W.1.
20.P.W.6 deposed that on 28.05.2022, during night hours heslept in his house, that in between 01.30 am to 02.00 am, P.W.4 and P.W.5 came to his house and woke him up, upon which, he along with his wife woke up, meanwhile, he heard some quarrel towards the house of P.W.2. He deposed that immediately, he rushed to the house of P.W.2, by that time 15 of 35
SC No.231/2022
the accused was getting down from the terrace of the house of the P.W.2 with iron rod and P.W’s 2 and 3 received bleeding injuries, that by noticing the same, immediately he informed P.W.7 who is their Village
Sarpanch about the above incident, that the said Sarpanch came there and informed 108 ambulance, P.W.7 also informed to police through 100 dial number, that thereafter, P.W’s 2 and 3 were shifted to hospital in ambulance.
21.In his cross-examination, P.W.6 deposed that he do not know whether previously quarrels took place between the family of P.W.1 and the accused with regard to the house of Durgaiah, that he has seen one iron rod at the house of P.W.2 and the same was recovered by the police.
He denied that at the time of alleged incident, there was dark, as such there is no chance to identify the person who was getting down from the terrace.
22.P.W.7 who is the Sarpanch of the Village deposed that on 29.05.2022, during night hours at about 01.30 am, P.W.4 and P.W.6 together made a phone call to him and informed that P.W.2 and P.W.3 were in a pool of blood, that immediately, he made call to 100 dial as well
as 108, that immediately, he along with P.W.4 and P.W.6 rushed to the
house of P.W.1, where he noticed blood stains on the terrace of the 16 of 35
SC No.231/2022
house of P.W.2, he also noticed injuries on the head of P.W.2, he also noticed injuries on the face and mouth of P.W.3 and blood was oozing from the mouth of P.W.3. He further deposed that meanwhile, 108 ambulance and police came there, that immediately P.W’s 2 and 3 were shifted in the said ambulance to the Government Hospital, Karimnagar, that thereafter, he went to his house.
23. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 admitted that one Bekyam
Durgaiah and Gangavva were issue-less, as such they adopted the accused, that Durgaiah and Gangavva are no more and they are having house in the name of Ankammalla Durgaiah in Venkataiahpalli Village.
He deposed that he do not know about the disputes between the family of P.W.1 and accused with regard to the said house. He further deposed that he do not know whether the accused along with his family is residing at Karimnagar since 22.02.2022. He admitted that he has noticed the accused after the alleged incident.
24.P.W.8 who is the panch for crime details form deposed that on 30.05.2022, at about 07.00 am, while he was going outside from his house in the village, on the way, he reached near the house of P.W.3, meanwhile, the police Gangadhara called him along with L.W.10/Ravula
Praveen Kumar and took them to the terrace of the house of P.W.3, where they noticed one knife and they measured the place of incident 17 of 35
SC No.231/2022
and drafted scene of offence panchanama and obtained his signature on it after explaining its contents. He further deposed that the police did not draw rough sketch in his presence. The crime details form is marked as Ex.P2
25.In his cross-examination, P.W.8 denied that he did not go to the house of P.W.3 on 30.05.2022 at 07.00 am and that he went to Police
Station, Gangadhara and the police obtained his signatures on blank papers. He further denied that he did not see any knife on the terrace of the house of P.W.3 and that he is deposing false.
26.P.W.9 who is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that on 30.05.2022, in the afternoon hours, while he was going to Pudur Village from Gangadhara in his auto, when he reached
Islampur bridge, the police Gangadhara stopped his auto, the police shown the accused, who was standing in the bushes near bridge and the police informed him that the accused bet some persons at
Venkataiahpalli Village. P.W.9 further deposed that then he along with
L.W.12 enquired the accused, on enquiry the accused confessed that he bet one Anil/P.W.3 with iron rod so also, bet the wife of Anil by name
Pushpa/P.W.2 with same iron rod, meanwhile one elder person rushed to the terrace of the building, by noticing him, the accused left the knife on the terrace and fled away along with iron rod. He further deposed 18 of 35
SC No.231/2022
that the accused further confessed that, as P.W.1 and his wife were quarreling with him, as such he attacked the said persons in order to kill them. P.W.9 further deposed that thereafter, the accused shown iron rod which was kept in a hand bag. The iron rod which was shown by the accused is marked as M.O.1, He deposed that thereafter the police drafted confession cum recovery panchanama and obtained the signatures after explaining its contents. The relevant portion of recovery panchanama is marked as Ex.P3.
27.In his cross-examination, P.W.9 admitted that the place of seizure is a busy locality, that the said road leads from Karimnagar to Jagtial.
He further deposed that the accused confessed that he hide the bag in the bushes thereafter, they along with accused and police went there and saw the bag. He admitted that he used to plough the lands of P.W’s 1 and 2 with his tractor. He denied that no confession took place at the alleged seizure of M.O.1 and that the police called him to Police Station and obtained his signatures on Ex.P3 and that he is deposing false.
28.P.W.10 is the doctor who treated P.W.2 and P.W.3. He deposed that he is running a private hospital namely Chanda Neuro and Trauma
Care Center, Karimnagar since 2018. He deposed that on 29.05.2022 at about 02.30 am one patient namely Nallala Anil/P.W.3 came to their hospital in a drowsy condition, that prior to coming to their hospital, the 19 of 35
SC No.231/2022
said patient was given first aid in Government Hospital, Karimnagar including dressing and suturing on the mid scalp and right frontal region, that immediately, they have done dressing and referred the said patient for scanning, that after scanning the said patient again came to their hospital with scanning film. P.W.10 deposed that on observation of the said scanning film, he has not found any active bleeding in the brain, he has noticed laceration wound and right forearm measuring 2 X 1 cms.
that X-ray was also done, that he found fracture injury on the right forearm. He deposed that the patient was admitted as inpatient on the same day and he was discharged on 04.06.2022, that the injury received by the above patient on his scalp is simple in nature and fresh and the age of said injury is between 4 to 6 hours, that the injury received by the above patient on right fore arm is grievous in nature and the said injury is fresh and the age of said injury between 4 to 6 hours prior to his examination. He further deposed that the injury received by the above patient on his right forearm might have been received due to infliction of sharp edged weapon, that he cannot say how the patient received the injury on his scalp, because already he was treated and sutures were done prior to his examination.
29.P.W.10 further deposed that on the same day, another patient namely Nallala Pushpa/P.W.2 also came to their hospital and she was 20 of 35
SC No.231/2022
admitted as inpatient and he treated her and he found the injuries (1)
Horizontal laceration measuring 6 X 1 cm on mid scalp region. (2)
Vertical laceration measuring 2 X 1 cm on mid scalp region and (3)
Laceration wound on occipital measuring 2 X 3 cm, that the above injuries are simple in nature and the age of injuries are about 4 to 6 hours prior to his examination, that the above injuries might have been received by the patient due to infliction with sharp edged weapon, that later the said patient was discharged on 01.06.2022. He deposed that he issued injury certificates of the above patients. The injury certificate of
P.W.2/Nallala Pushpa is marked as Ex.P4. The injury certificate of
P.W.3/Nallala Anil is marked as Ex.P5.
30.In his cross-examination, P.W.10 admitted that either in Ex.P4 or
Ex.P5 he has not mentioned the IP number so also MLC number. He admitted that the concerned police have not given written requisition to their hospital to give injury certificates of P.W’s 2 and 3. He deposed that the police came to their hospital personally to collect those documents.
He admitted that basing on the version of P.W’s 2 and 3, he came to know that the injuries were inflicted due to beating with rod. He deposed that it is not possible if a person falls on the hard surface or on the sharp edged weapon to receive those injuries. He denied that P.W’s 2 and 3 were never admitted in their hospital and that they did not receive 21 of 35
SC No.231/2022
any injuries as mentioned in Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 and that he has issued
Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 at the instance of P.W’s 2 and 3 and that he has not given any treatment to P.W’s 2 and 3.
31.P.W.11 is the then Investigating Officer who deposed about the manner of investigation done by him. Ex.P6 First
Information Report and M.O.2 Knife are marked through him. In his cross examination he deposed that the alleged incident took place in the early hours of 29.05.2022 at 01.30 am, whereas,
Ex.P1 report was lodged at 04.15 pm on the same day. He admitted that there is a delay of 15.00 hours in lodging Ex.P1 report. He deposed that they have mentioned about the delay in lodging Ex.P1/report, in the First Information Report/Ex.P6. He denied that he has not visited the scene of offence where he did not seize M.O.2 knife in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.10 and that he did not draft any scene of offence panchanama, so also draw the rough sketch. He admitted that there are no panch chits on M.O.2. He deposed that the panch chits might have misplaced.
He denied that the place of seizure is a busy road. He admitted that on M.O.1/rod no panch chits are appearing. He deposed that the said panch chits might have misplaced. He further deposed that initially P.W’s 2 and 3 were admitted in Civil Hospital, 22 of 35
SC No.231/2022
Karimnagar, later they took treatment in Sai Chandana Hospital,
Karimnagar. He denied that he created Ex.P4 for the purpose of this case. He further denied that he did not record the statements of witnesses and that there was a civil dispute between the accused and P.W’s 2 and 3 and that he implicated the accused at the instance of P.W.1 and that he is deposing false.
32.Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused committed house trespass by entering into the house of PW1 to 3 and attacked PW2 and 3 with an intention to kill them. The burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove that the accused trespassed into the house of P.W’s 1 to 3 and made an attempt to do away with the life's of the victims. Mensrea is an essential component for the charge under Section 307 IPC. The testimony of P.W.1 goes to show that the motive for the attack is quarrel with regard to dung heap at their village. The testimony of P.W’s 2 and 3 who are the injured amply goes to show that there was mensrea on the part of the accused to attack them. The evidence of the injured is found to be consistent and corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1.
Nothing could be elicited from P.W’s 1 to 3 to show the 23 of 35
SC No.231/2022
necessity to implicate the accused in a false case without there being any injuries on PW2 and 3. They denied the suggestions that the accused did not attack them with iron rod. The evidence of PW’s 4 to 7 is direct evidence regarding the presence of injuries over the body of PW2 and PW3. No material was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W’s 4 to 7 to disprove their testimony with regard to the injuries on the person of PW’s 2 and 3. There is nothing on record to show the necessity of P.W’s 4 to 7 to give false version against the accused. There is nothing on record either to disbelieve or discredit the testimony of P.W’s 1 to 7. The attack made by the accused with iron rod on the vital parts of P.W’s 2 and 3 like occipital region, scalp clearly indicates the intention and knowledge of the accused to do away with the life’s of P.W’s 2 and 3. Though some omissions were pointed out during the course of cross-examination of P.W’s 1 to 7, but on a careful scrutiny, those omissions cannot be treated as material and significant omissions which may effect the root of the prosecution case as such, the minor discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses during the course of trial and those made before the police during the 24 of 35
SC No.231/2022
course of investigation do not effect the case of prosecution and as such, the insignificant omissions and minor discrepancies would not be sufficient to discredit the testimony of the injured witnesses. Therefore, the contention of the learned legal aid counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted. When, according to the suggestions given by the learned counsel for accused, the accused was not residing in the village and was residing at Karimnagar, then the burden shifts to the accused to substantiate the plea of alibi. But, nothing is placed before this Court, except bare and bald suggestions to that effect by way of giving suggestions.
Admittedly, there is no material on record to probabilise the defence set up by the accused.
33.Now, coming to the aspect of medical evidence on record.
P.W.10 is the doctor who treated P.W’s 2 and 3 and issued
Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 medical certificates respectively. According to
P.W.10, he noticed laceration wound and fracture injury on the right forearm of P.W.3 which are simple injury and grievous injury respectively. As per P.W.10, P.W.2 received three simple injuries on scalp region and occipital region. The evidence of 25 of 35
SC No.231/2022
the injured witnesses is found to be consistent with the evidence of P.W.10 and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Nothing could be elicited from P.W.10 to disprove the contents of Ex.P4 and
Ex.P5. There is no reason to discredit the evidence of P.W’s 2, 3 and 10 which is found to be trustworthy.
34.Now coming to the evidence of P.W.9 who is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama. P.W.11 deposed that on 30.05.2022 he apprehended the accused, conducted recovery panchanama in the presence of P.W.9 and L.W.12 and recovered
M.O.1/iron rod under recovery panchanama/Ex.P2. P.W.9 supported the version of P.W.11 regarding conducting of recovery panchanama
Ex.P3 and also seizure of M.O.1. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.9 to discredit his testimony with regard to the conduct of recovery panchanama and seizure of M.O.1/iron rod.
35.So far as the delay in lodging Ex.P1/report is concerned, it is seen that the incident occurred in the intervening night of 28/29.05.2022 at 01.30 hours and that P.W.1 lodged report on 29.05.2022 at 16.15 hours.
36.The evidence of P.W’s 1 to 7 would reveal that the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar and 26 of 35
SC No.231/2022
thereafter to private Hospital for better treatment. Thus, there is no enormous delay in lodging Ex.P1 since the injured were taken to the Hospital for medical treatment soon after the occurrence. It is settled law that delay in lodging first information report cannot be considered as fatal in each and every case. It is quite natural that the injured persons will be taken to the hospital for treatment rather than lodging a report with the police. Thus, mere delay in lodging Ex.P1 cannot be considered as fatal to the case of the prosecution.
37.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022 in between Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that:
“The medical evidence on record further corroborates the ocular version of the eye witnesses. The PW-6 Dr. Shivaji Vishnu Kachare (Exh. 25) in his evidence has deposed that the cause of death is due to the head injury. The expert witness has also deposed that all the injuries were in the nature of Contused Lacerated Wound & could have been caused by a weapon like hammer”.
27 of 35
SC No.231/2022
“The chemical analysis report (Exh.10) of the forensic science laboratory indicates that there were stains of human blood on the hammer matching with the blood group of the deceased i.e. ‘A’ group”.
38.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.466 of 2014 decided on 20.02.2014 in between Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao Vs. State of A.P. & others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“There is no merit in the contention that the statement of Medical Officer that there is no danger to life unless there is dislocation or rupture of the thyroid bone due to strangulation means that the accused did not intend, or have the knowledge, that their act would cause death. The circumstances of this case clearly attract the second part of this Section since the act resulted in injury No.5 which is a ligature mark of 34 cm x 0.5 cm. It must be noted that Section 307 IPC provides for imprisonment for life if the act causes ‘hurt’. It does not require that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. The intention to cause death is clearly attributable to the accused since the victim was strangulated after throwing a telephone wire around his neck and telling him he should die”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that:
“There is no doubt that the trespass was into a house and that the appellant entered the office having prepared to assault the victim and in any case for putting him in fear of hurt or of assault. There is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest that the use to which the house is put makes any difference. It is not the requirement of Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be an offence the house must be a private place and not an office. The law protects any house from 28 of 35
SC No.231/2022
trespass, vide Section 448 IPC and further protects persons within the house from being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own house”.
39.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1525 of 2017 decided on 29.08.2017 in between Ahsan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“In our opinion, while sentencing the accused, the Court is required to take into account several factors arising in the case, such as the nature of offence committed, the manner in which it was committed, its gravity, the motive behind the commission of the offence, nature of injuries sustained by the victim, whether the injuries sustained were simple or grievous in nature, weapons used for commission of offence and any other extenuating circumstances if any. Once these factors are considered while imposing the sentence, there remains little scope to interfere in quantum of punishment. Such is the case here”.
40.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further relied on a Judgment of Honble Orissa High Courtin between Ramesh Chandra Acharya @ Jagannath Das @ Ramu Vs. State of Orissa decided on 11.04.2014 wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that:
“We repel such contention by stating that if the evidence against the accused persons is direct, clear, cogent and reliable, absence of proof of motive is of no consequence. Prosecution is not bound to prove motive always. Here the evidence of P.Ws.2,4 and 12, who are eye-witnesses are clear, cogent and reliable with regard to core story of assault and corroborate one another. Therefore, even if prosecution failed to prove motive, conviction can be sustained under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. It is equally well settled that when direct evidence of eye-witnesses are available, the question of motive becomes academic”.
29 of 35
SC No.231/2022
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that:
“With regard to contradictions amongst P.Ws.2,5 and 12, a scanning of evidence would show that such contradictions, are minor contradictions which in no way demolish the core prosecution story of assault on the deceased and P.W.12 by the appellant by using a Gupti (M.O.I)”. “In this regard, our answer would be when the evidence of eye-witnesses are clear and cogent even non-recovery of weapon of offence would not demolish the case of the prosecution”.
41.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.486 of 1996 decided on 20.02.2003 in between State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Premi and others wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“The testimony of PW8 that the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon and not with a blunt weapon, is in the nature of the opinion of one of the doctors. In any case, testimony of PW8 cannot be read in isolation. His evidence is to be read as a whole and when so read it becomes clear that the injuries of the kind inflicted on PW3 and the deceased could be caused with the butt of the revolver. It has also to be borne in mind that generally injury on head is caused by a blunt weapon”.
“The medical evidence and the ocular evidence is wholly consistent as was rightly held by the Court of
Sessions”.
42. In the present case also, though there are some contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same is not sufficient to discard the entire case of the prosecution.
30 of 35
SC No.231/2022
43.On the other hand, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1029 of 2023 decided on 12.04.2023 in between Sita Ram Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“As observed earlier, there is serious doubt whether P.W.1 and P.W.2 had really seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with the blunt edge of the spade. There was a prior enmity between the two eyewitnesses and the accused. Moreover, at least three independent eyewitnesses were available whose statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) were admittedly recorded. One of them (Munif) admittedly attended the Court but was not examined. It is true that when there are a number of eyewitnesses, the prosecution’s case cannot be disbelieved on the ground that few of the eyewitnesses were not examined, especially when the version of the eyewitnesses examined before the Court, inspires confidence. In the present case, version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not inspire confidence. That is how the failure of the prosecution to examine three independent eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded, becomes very relevant. Moreover, one of the three witnesses attended the Court but was not examined. Considering the fact that the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who were allegedly injured witnesses, cannot be believed, adverse inference will have to be drawn on account of the prosecution’s failure to examine the three eyewitnesses”.
“Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under the impugned judgment and orders is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him”.
31 of 35
SC No.231/2022
44.The learned legal aid counsel for the accused also relied on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1123 of 2010 decided on 07.05.2019 in between Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. The State of Gujarat wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“There was darkness at the time and the place of occurrence making it difficult for the witnesses to identify the assailants. The evidence of eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other as to the firing of the fatal blow. The guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit has to be given to the accused”.
45. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the said judgments. But, in my humble opinion the facts of the said case are factually different from the present case. In the present case, the evidence of P.W’s 1 to 3 is clear and cogent and the evidence of P.W’s 4 to 7 is reliable and trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. Though suggestions were given to P.W’s 1 to 7 that as there was dark at the time of incident, as such they did not identify the accused, but the same was denied by them. Nothing is elicited in the cross- examination of P.W’s 1 to 7 that they did not identify the accused.
46.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, coupled with oral and documentary evidence on record, this court is of the 32 of 35
SC No.231/2022
view that the prosecution could establish successfully that the accused committed trespass by entering into the house of P.W’s 1 to 3 and attempted to kill P.W’s 2 and 3 with iron rod and therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 452 IPC and 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction. The point is answered accordingly.
POINT NO. 2:-
47.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under Section 452 IPC and 307 IPC and he is convicted accordingly under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-II transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of August, 2024.
Sd/-
Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
Hearing on Quantum of Sentence
1.The accused present. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused present. The accused is examined on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him for the offences under Section 452 IPC and 307 IPC and the same is recorded on a separate questionnaire. The accused pleaded that he has got wife and children who are dependant 33 of 35
SC No.231/2022
on him and that he is the sole bread winner of the family and requested to take a lenient view. The learned legal aid counsel for the accused requested the Court to take a lenient view.
2.Taking into consideration that the accused committed house trespass and caused injuries to P.W’s 2 and 3, I find that it is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders
Act and the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C.
3.Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into consideration the plea of mercy of the accused, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC and is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.
4.Theaccusedis further convicted for the second charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injury to Nallala Anil/P.W.3 and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand
Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.
5.The accused is further convicted for the third charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injury to Nallala
Pushpa/P.W.2 and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one (1) month. Total fine amount is Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only).All the substantive sentences shall shall run concurrently.
34 of 35
SC No.231/2022
6.The remand period of the accused from 30.05.2022 to 27.08.2022 and from 06.01.2024 to 27.02.2024 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O’s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
7. The accused is informed that he has right to prefer appeal against this judgment. He is also informed that if he has no means to engage an
Advocate in the Hon’ble Appellate Court, he can approach the District
Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar, if he intends to seek legal aid to prefer an appeal. The Office is directed to furnish copy of Judgment free of cost to the accused, forthwith.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-II transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of August, 2024.
Sd/-
Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: P.W.1 Nallala Pochaiah. P.W.2 Nallala Pushpa. P.W.3 Nallala Anil. P.W.4 Bekyam Laxman. P.W.5 Bekyam Jyothi. P.W.6 Enutla Srinivas. P.W.7 Sirimalla Megaraju. P.W.8 Narkula Ramesh. P.W.9 Pallati Sathaiah. P.W.10 Chanda Srinivas Rao. P.W.11 G.Ravinder.
35 of 35
SC No.231/2022
FOR THE DEFENCE
---None---
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Report. Ex.P2Crime Details Form. Ex.P3Relevant portion of recovery panchanama. Ex.P4Injury certificate of P.W.2/Nallala Pushpa. Ex.P5Injury certificate of P.W.3/Nallala Anil. Ex.P6First Information Report.
FOR DEFENCE: ---Nil---
Material Objects M.O.1 Iron rod. M.O.2 Knife.
Sd/-
Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.