CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ADONI
C.C.NO.456/2017
1Date of offence03.04.2017 2Date of complaint 03.04.2017 3Date of apprehension of accused04.04.2017 4Date of release on bail of accused11.04.2017 5Date of commencement of trial13.03.2020 6Date of close of trial29.03.2023 7Date of Judgment 24.04.2023
ComplainantState represented by the Station House Officer, Adoni Taluk Police Station. Accused1.KuruvaSekhannaS/oK. Ramanna, age 35 years.
2.KuruvaRenukammaW/o K.Sekhanna, age 30 years.
OffenceAssault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Section of Law U/Sec.353 and 506 of IPC.
FindingAccused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty.
Sentence or As a result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 orderare found guilty of the offences punishable under Secs.353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
The accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to stand till the rise of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/- each (Rupees Nine Thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Further, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to stand till the rise of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled, after appeal time is over.
MO1 & MO2 shall be destroyed after the lapse of the appeal period.
Accused 1 & 2 are informed about the right of appeal and legal aid
The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off Under 2
Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ADONI.
Copy submitted to:The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS:: ADONI.
Present:-Sri S.Srikanth, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.
Monday, the 24th day of April 2023
C.C. No. 456 of 2017
State represented by 3
Station House Officer, Adoni Taluka Police Station Complainant
Vs
1.Kuruva Sekhanna S/o K. Ramanna, age 35 years.
2.Kuruva Renukamma W/o K.Sekhanna, age 30 years. …. Accused
This case is coming on 19.04.2023 for a final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned Senior APP for the prosecution and of
Sri J. Chandra Mohan Goud and Sri D. Nagendra for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Station House Officer, Adoni Taluka Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Cr. No.222017 for the offence punishable under Secs.353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:-
The RWS Department officials dug out a borewell at the outskirts of the Dibbanakl village beside Vanka, which exists beside the land of the accused for the purpose of drinking water of the Dibbanakal villagers about 3 years prior to the date of the offence. Since then, Dibbankal villagers have been utilising water for drinking from the said borewell, but the A1 & A2 causing obstructions to the waterman M. Hussaini/LW5, whenever, he goes to release water from the Borewell, the accused demands that the said borewell belongs to them, as it was established in their land.
Several times accused Nos.1 & 2 damaged the cable wire, which is connected to the borewell.
On 03.04.2017, morning at about 10.00 AM, LW1/K. Jyothi
Sumanth/defacto complainant, LW2/B.Chandrasekhar Reddy and
LW4/M.Sudhakar went near the borewell in order to repair the wire damaged by the accused the previous day, the A1 & A2 assaulted LW1,
LW2 and LW4 by pushing them aside and obstructing them from discharging their lawful duties and denied releasing the water from the borewell. LW3/K.Lakshmanna and LW4/M. Sudhakar witnessed the occurrence. LW1 preferred complaint before LW8/ASI 1053, Adoni Taluk
P.S, who registered a case in Cr. No.22/2017 under Sec.353, 430, 506 r/w 4 34 of IPC and investigated.
During the course of the investigation, LW8 examined LW1 to LW5 and recorded their statements. LW8 visited the scene of the offence and in the presence of LW6/Kuruva Lakshmanna and LW7/Kuruva Gosi Eranna seized one axe and 2 feet of cable wire, which is damaged by the accused the presence of LW6 and LW7 under cover of the panchanama dt.03.04.2017 at 4.30 PM. Further, LW8 prepared a rough sketch relating to the scene of the offence.
During the course of the investigation, on 03.04.2017, LW8 served
Sec.41-A Cr. P.C notice to the accused. On 04.04.2017, LW8 arrested the accused and sent them for remand and after investigation laid a charge sheet under Sec.353, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the case.
3.This case was taken on file for the offence under Secs.353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.
4.On the appearance of the accused, before the court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. was furnished to them.
The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Crpc. Charges under
Sec.353 and 506 of IPC have been framed, read over, and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6. Exs. P1 to P5 were marked and Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of the defence. In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW6, the learned Sr. APP has given up the evidence of LW4/M. Sudhakar and LW5/M.Hussaini.
Prosecution side evidence is closed.
6.After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr. P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.
7.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:
“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence
under Sec.353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC “?
POINT:
8.The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is cogent, corroborating with each other and the prosecution has 5 to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, learned A.P.P prayed to this court to convict the accused according to the law.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there are several contradictions and omissions and the prosecution failed toestablish the commission of the offence. Hence he sought for acquittal of the accused.
9. A perusal of the material available on record, this court
shall discuss the evidence and essential ingredients of Sec.34, 353
and 506 of IPC as follows:- ● PW1, PW2 and PW4 are the victims.
● PW3 is the circumstantial witness.
● PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution.
● PW6 is the Investigating officer.
● PW1/Panchayat Secretary deposed that he cannot identify A1 & A2, since a mob people were present during the alleged incident at the scene of the offence.
PW1 further deposed that a borewell was dug by the government at the outskirts of the Dibbanakal village, for the purpose of drinking water for the Dibbanakal villagers. A1 & A2 obstructed the supply of water, to the villagers as they alone wanted to use the water.
PW1 further deposed that at about 10.00 AM, on 03.04.2017, on the complaint of the villagers, against A1 & A2, he along with PW2 to PW4 and LW5 went to the place, where the borewell is situated.
PW1 further deposed that when LW5/Hussaini tried to connect the cable wire to the borewell, the accused no.1 and 2, obstructed
LW5 in doing so by saying that the said borewell is situated beside their land, the water in the borewell belong to them alone.
PW1 further deposed that on 03.04.2017, at about 10.00 AM, while he along with PW2 to PW4 and LW5 went to the said borewell in order to do repairs, A1 and A2 were present there and informed them that as the borewell is situated beside in the land of the accused, the water from the borewell belongs to the accused alone.
But they informed the accused that the said borewell is to be used for public purposes for all the villagers.
6
PW1 further deposed that A1 & A2 came forward, towards himself and PW2 to push them on that they went back for some steps. Then he along with PW2 went to the police station and preferred a complaint against A1 & A2, as they obstructed them from discharging their lawful duties.
PW1 further deposed that the entire incident was witnessed by
PW3, PW4 and LW5.
● PW2/Asst. Executive Engineer deposed that they have dug a borewell for the purpose of drinking water for the villagers of
Dibbanakallu village, which is situated on the adjacent land of A1 and they received many complaints, that the borewell with motor is not working and they went personally and on enquiry, they came to know that the accused is cutting the electricity cable.
PW2 further deposed that on 03.04.2017, at AM, he along with
PW1, PW3 and PW4, went to Dibbankallu village near borewell and
A1 & A2 came near to the scene of offence and cut the wire with an axe and also threatened, how they can repair the borewell with the motor.
PW2 further deposed that as they could not perform their duties in repairing the borewell, they went away from the scene of the offence and went to the police station and PW1 gave a report against A1 & A2 for obstructing their duties and also threatening them.
● PW3 is a contractor for borewells, to whom Government had given a contract and he dug a borewell in Poramboku land of Dibbanakallu village which was dug in the year 2014 and since 2014 villagers of the Dibbankallu are using the same.
PW3 further deposed that the accused cut the wire which is connected to the borewell on 03.04.2017, at about 4.30 PM,
Subsequently, PW1, PW2 and PW4 came there.
PW3 further deposed that the RWS department people came there and repaired the said borewell and advised the accused not to cut the wires as the wire as entire villagers use the water and again the accused cut the wire and did not listen to the RWS people.
Subsequently, police came and took the accused and he does not 7 know the reason for cutting the wire.
● PW4 deposed that on 03.04.2017, at 10.00 AM, he PW1 to PW3 went to the Dibbanakallu village, as they got information that there was a repair in the borewell motor and they were repairing.
PW4 further deposed that one Shekanna and one Renukamma came there and abused them and also said that they are attempting in preventing to water accused fields.
PW4 further deposed that the said Shekanna hacked the cable wire with an axe and came towards them and threatened them.
PW4 further deposed that they went from the scene of the offence under the fear that they will attack them.
PW4 identified both the accused, who obstructed them.
● PW6 deposed that on 03.04.2017, at 1.00 PM while he was in the police station, PW1 along with two others came to the police station preferred complaint, based on the police proceedings, he registered a case in Cr.No.22/2017 under Sec.354, 430, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, he examined PW1 to PW3, and reached the scene of the offence, observed the scene of the offence, and drew the rough sketch, after securing the presence of PW4 and LW5, recorded their statements, examined them, reached the house of the accused and served
Sec.41-Cr.P.C notice to the accused, as the accused disobeyed the
Sec.41-A Cr. P.C notice produced the accused for judicial custody and on the same day visited the scene of the offence, secured the panchayatdars, seized cable wire and sickle at the scene of the offence under the cover of seizure panchanama and forwarded the material object to the court and after the completion of the investigation laid charge sheet under Sec.353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
10.PW1 deposed that he cannot identify A1 & A2 since a mob of people were present during the alleged incident at the scene of the offence.
However, PW1 deposed that on 03.04.2017, at about 10.00 AM, A1 and A2 informed them as the borewell is situated beside the land of the accused, the water from the borewell belongs to the accused and A1 & A2 came forward towards PW1 and PW2 to push the, on that, they went back for some steps and the complaint has been preferred as they accused 8 obstructed them from discharging their lawful duties.
11.As per the version of PW2, A1 and A3 came near to the scene of offence and cut the wire with an axe and threatened them how they can repair the borewell with a motor and as they could not perform their duties in repairing the borewell they went away from the scene of offence and approached police and gave a complaint against A1 and A2 for obstructing their duties. The presence of PW1 to PW4 and PW5 is proved.
12. The version of the PW3 is that the RWS Department came there and repaired the borewell at the scene of the offence and advised the accused not to cut the wires, as the entire village uses the water and again the accused cut the wire and did not listen to the words of the RWS people.
13.PW4 also deposed that on 03.04.2017, at about 10.00 AM, one
Shekhanna and one Renukamma, A1 & A2 came there and abused them and A1 hacked the cable with the wire and came towards them and threatened them.
14.The crucial witnesses are PW1 to PW4, who deposed that A1 and A2 obstructed them while their discharging their lawful duties.
15.The evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW2 to
PW4. However, PW1 categorically stated that he can identify the A1 and
A2, but he deposed regarding the commission of the offence.
16.While considering the evidence of PW2 independently, PW2 clearly deposed that A1 & A2 came near to the scene of the offence and cut the wire with an axe and also threatened them and he identified the accused nos.1 & 2.
The same is corroborated and the same is deposed by PW4 and PW5 also identified the accused no.1 & 2.
17.The evidence of the PW3 contractor who dug the borewell is uncertain and vague.
As PW1 himself stated that he cannot identify A1 and A2 and as the evidence of PW3 is uncertain and not trustworthy, this court is not inclined to rely on their evidence.
18.The rest of the evidence, which is available on record is 9 concerning PW2 and PW4 and their evidence is corroborated and is on the same lines.
19.The learned defence counsel tried to elicit from the witnesses the following points ● Regarding the location of the borewell, ● Regarding the writ petition no.1755 of 2017 against the
Government in which, PW1 is the 5th respondent ● Regarding the writ petition no.2907/2019 before the Hon’ble
High Court of A.P and Telangana, in order to ascertain, ● In whose land the borewell was dug the same are not much relevant in this case, as the offence is not regarding the criminal trespass and this court is not deciding or looking into the aspect of the exact location of the scene of offence if the offence happened in the land or outside the land of the accused and the same are not relevant in order to decide the present case.
20.Even assuming that the alleged incident happened in the land of the accused no.1, the same is irrelevant as the version of the accused is not the right of private defence.
21.The learned counsel for the accused stated that A1’s brother is
Ex-sarpanch and there is a political rivalry and this court is not inclined to believe the same, as the writ petitions are pending before the Hon’ble High
Court, concerning the borewell and to ascertain if it is dug in the land of the accused or somewhere else.
22.Further, the PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 deposed that the borewell was dug and the accused obstructed them by cutting the wire and hence, this court is not inclined to believe the version of the defence that because of the political rivalry a false case has been foisted against the innocent accused.
23.This court feels it is proper to discuss common intention and to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6893 OF 2021) KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND
OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA as follows:-
Common intention and constructive liability.-Section 34 deals with constructive criminal liability. It provides that 10 where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such per- sons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. If the common intention leads to the commission of the criminal offence charged, each one of the persons sharing the common intention is constructively liable for the criminal act done by one of them - Nand Kishore v
State of M.P. (2012)1 SCC (Cri) 378: (2011)12 SCC 120;
Brathi v State of Punjab (1991)1 SCC 519.
Analysis.-To attract sec. 34, IPC two postulates are indispensable:
(1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but by more than one person.
(2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such persons.
Looking at the first postulate, the accused who is to be fastened with liability on the strength of sec. 34, IPC should have done some act which has nexus. with the offence. Even an omission can, in certain circumstances amount to an act. The act need not be an overt act - Suresh v State (2001)3 SCC 673 (a three-Judge Bench decision).
To invoke the aid of sec. 34 successfully, it must be shown that the criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in the furtherance of the common intention of all; if this is shown, then the liability for the crime may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the acts were done by him alone.
Common intention to commit a criminal act: development at the spot
Accepting the legal position that common intention may develop at the spot Supreme Court held:
"Common intention" under section 34 presupposes a prior concert, that is a prior meeting of the minds, but such pre-concert can develop on the spot and without any long interval of time between it and the doing of the act commonly intended._ Risideo Pande v State of UP, AIR 1955 SC 334:
1955 CrLJ 873; Khacharu Singh v State of UP, AIR 1956 SC 546:
1956 CrLJ 950.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the theory that albeit the existence of a pre-arranged plan, common intention, can develop at the spot. But the
Supreme Court held that there has to be cogent material on the basis of which the Court can arrive at that finding and hold an accused vicariously 11 liable for the act of the other accused by invoking section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. __ Sheoram Singh v State of UP, AIR 1972 SC
2555: 1973 CrLJ 26: (1973) 3 SCC 110. In Krishnia v State of
Rajasthan, 1998 CrLJ 38 (Raj).
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 288
OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.
6893 OF 2021) KRISHNAMURTHY @ GUNODU AND OTHERS VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA held that Section 34 IPC Not Attracted
When Final Outcome Or Offence committed is Distinctly Remote
And Unconnected with Common Intention and the relevant
paragraphs are herewith extracted:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - A co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable - Merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention - A co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act - The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (Para 13,19)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence.
A person is liable for his own acts. (Para 18)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre-arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute
before the actual act happens. (Para 18)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Relevant Facts - The 12 manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied.
(Para 18)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - The expression "common intention" should also not be confused with "intention" or "mens rea" as an essential ingredient of several offences under the IPC - For some offences, mental intention is not a requirement but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is ingredient of the offence, may be identical with the common intention of the co- perpetrators, but this is not mandatory. (Para 18)
Before a man can be held liable for the acts done by another, under
the provisions of this section, it must be established that
I.There was a common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two.
II.The person sought to be held liable participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. Unless common intention and participation or present the section cannot apply.
The common intention which arose at the spot is to threaten PW1 to
PW4 by threatening with an axe.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the theory that albeit the existence of a pre-arranged plan, common intention, can develop at the spot. But the
Supreme Court held that there has to be cogent material on the basis of which the Court can arrive at that finding and hold an accused vicariously liable for the act of the other accused by invoking section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
24. Ingredients of offence.-The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 34 are as follows:
(1) There must be a meeting of all the accused prior to the commission of the offence.
(2) All the accused must have participated in the said meeting 13 intended to commit the offences.
(3) There must be common intention of offence.
(4) There must be participation in commission of offence- Sunny Kapoor v State (2006)10 SCC 182: AIR 2006 SC 2242: 2006 Cr LJ 2920; Ham- let v State of Kerala (2003) 10 SCC 108. (5) Criminal act must have been committed in furtherance of their common intention.
Though A2 was not holding any weapon, however, she is having common intentions concerning the offence as they abused Government officials and also threatened them.
As PW1 stated, A1 and A2 came forward towards, PW1 and PW2 to push them, and on that, they went back for some steps, which shows A2 is having a common intention.
As per the evidence of PW2, A1 and A2 came near the scene of the offence and also threatened them, which shows that A2 is also having a common intention.
PW4 also deposed that, A1 and A2 came there and abused them and also threatened them, which shows that A2 is also having a common intention.
Here in the instant case. Only A1 was holding Axe but not A2 but their intention which arose on the spot make A2 liable for the offence under sections 353 and 506 of IPC even though A2 did not hold any weapon.
25.Though, PW1 admitted that the learned defence counsel got
Ex.D1 marked through PW3 in which, it is mentioned that the RWS department dug a drinking water borewell in the land of Shekanna and the same is not relevant, as this court is not ascertaining whether the borewell is in the land of the accused or adjacent to it, or if it belongs to the accused, or to the Government and hence, Ex.D1 is irrelevant.
26.The learned defence counsel submitted that there is no written complaint from the villagers and the same cannot be considered, in view of the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and also in view of the writ petitions filed by the accused before the Hon’ble High Court.
27.There is time variation between the evidence of PW1, PW2 and
PW4 when compared with PW3. PW1, PW2 and PW4 deposed that the time 14 of PW1 to PW5 going to the scene of the offence is 10.00 AM, whereas,
PW3 says that it is 4.30 PM. However, PW1, PW2 and PW4 deposed that the incident happened at 10.30 AM and the learned defence counsel version prior to the incident FIR registered is not considered and the evidence of PW3 is ignored while appreciating the evidence of PW1 to
PW4.
28.This court feels it is proper to refer the Judgment reported in
(2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 247 in Sunder Singh Vs., State of
Haryana, in which, it was held that “contradictions, inconsistencies,
exaggerations, embellishments and every discrepancy cannot be
treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution and the discrepancy
which does not affect the prosecution case materially does not
create infirmity.”
In view of the above authoritiy, it can be safely concluded that when there is sufficient and reliable evidence available against the accused, minor discrepancies if any in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses shall not be the grounds for the escape of the accused.
Even by excluding the said discrepancies, omissions and inconsistencies, the rest of the evidence of P.W.2 & PW4, when considered independently is sufficient to record the guilt of the accused.
29.Though the learned defence counsel submitted written arguments regarding Sec.430 IPC and the same is not charged against the accused, and this court is not inclined to discuss the same and there is no need to discuss the same.
30.The learned defence counsel submitted in the written arguments regarding Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice and also arrest by the police and the same is not important in the present scenario to decide the case.
31.The evidence of PW.2 is corroborated by the evidence of Pw4 and there is nothing to disbelieve or suspect the trustworthiness of their testimony. The lengthy cross-examination made by the defence counsel could not elicit anything to doubt the veracity of their evidence.
Even considering the evidence of PW2 and PW4, the same is cogent, convincing and coherent and the evidence of PW2 and PW4 is trustworthy and could not be shaken by the defence counsel.
32. Ingredients of Sec.353 IPC - The essential ingredients of the 15 offence under Sec.353 of IPC are as follows:-
1.Accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant.
2.Such public servant was then acting in the discharge of his duty.
3.Accused assaulted with the intention of preventing or deterring such public servant discharging his duty, or
4.It was used in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant.
The primary ingredient of Sec.353 of IPC is that the accused must assault or use criminal force on a public servant.
In the instant case, A1 and A2 did not assault PW1 or PW2 or PW3 or
PW4, however, they used criminal force against PW1, PW2 and PW4.
Even when considering the evidence of PW2 and PW4, both of them deposed that they could not perform their duties in repairing the wells and they were threatened, which shows that the accused used criminal force on a public servant while discharging their duty, in order to prevent the public servant doing the same and criminal force was used in consequences of preventing them to repair the borewell.
In the present case, as per the evidence of PW2 and PW4 (ignoring the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3), it is apparent that A1 and A2 obstructed PW1, PW2 and PW4 while discharging their duties, who are panchayat secretary, Asst. Executive officer and VRO respectively,
Hence, the prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of the accused under Sec.353 of IPC
33. Ingredients of offence U/Sec.506 IPC :- The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.506 IPC are as follows:
1. The accused threatened someone with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested;
2. The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence;
3. The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
As PW1 stated, A1 and A2 came forward towards, PW1 and PW2 to push them, and on that, they went back for some steps.
As per the evidence of PW2, A1 and A2 came near the scene of the offence and also threatened them.
PW4 also deposed that, A1 and A2 came there and abused them and also threatened them.
16
Ignoring the evidence of PW1, the version of PW2 & PW4 is that the accused threatened them and they went away from the scene of the offence, which shows that there is the intention to cause alarm to the victim/PW2 and PW4 and the accused simply stated that the accused threatened them to perform any act i.e., repairing the borewell which he was is legally bound to do.
Charge of criminal intimidation.- Proving the intention of the appellant to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a prerequisite of successful conviction under section 506 of IPC - Manik Taneja v State of Karnataka.
The accused alarmed and compelled PW2 & PW4 to move away from the scene of offence by showing an axe, which is nothing but criminal force and prevented in doing their legal act of repairing the borewell and hence in view of the above decision this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could prove the essential ingredients of Section 506 of IPC.
Hence, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sec.506 of IPC.
34. As per Sec. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence has to be weighed and not counted, It is the quality of the evidence of a witness to be taken into consideration but not the quantity or the number of witnesses.
However, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 alone also constitutes the offence under Sec.353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC even ignoring the evidence of
PW1 & PW3.
35.In the light of the foregoing discussion, the accused is found guilty of the offence Under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC and the prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
36.As a result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found guilty of the offences punishable under Secs.353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed, and
pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April, 2023.
I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ADONI.
17
This court asked regarding the quantum of sentence, for which, for which the accused did not submit anything, the learned counsel for the accused with the permission of the court submitted that the accused are unable to react and prayed to take a lenient view and also submitted that the family members are depending upon the accused and pray to show mercy and also pray to take a lenient view.
The submissions made by the accused are considered.
However, keeping in view the nature of the offence committed by them and its gravity I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to release the accused under the benevolent Provisions of Probation of the Offenders
Act 1958.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
court passed the following sentence:-
The accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to stand till the rise of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/- each (Rupees Nine
Thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Further, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are sentenced to stand till the rise of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One
Thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled, after appeal time is over.
MO1 & MO2 shall be destroyed after the lapse of the appeal period.
Accused 1 & 2 are informed about the right of appeal and legal aid
The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off
Under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
Directly, typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April 2023 .
I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ADONI 18
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution: Defence: None.
P.W.1 : K. Jyothi Sumanth P.W.2 : D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy P.W.3 : K. Laxmanna P.W.4 : M. Sudhakar P.W.5 : Gosi Eranna P.W.6 : N. Thimmappa
EXHIBITS MARKED:
Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint dt.03.04.2017 Ex.P2: Signature on arrest cum Seizured panchanama Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Rough sketch Ex.P5: Seizure panchanama
Defense: Red marked portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Prosecution:
MO1: Axe MO2: Cable wire
I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
ADONI.