IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE
FIRST CLASS :: KOILAKUNTLA.
Present :- ABDUL RAHMAN SHAIK, Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Koilkuntla.
Dated Tuesday, the 8 th day of April, 2025.
CALENDER CASE NO. 70 OF 2019 APKU130000992019
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Revanur Police Station in Crime No.58 of 2018.
... Complainant
- Versus –
Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Son of Khasim Peera, Aged 25 years, Resident of
Keshapuram Village, Kotha Cheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District.
... Accused
This Case is coming on 02-04-2025 before me, for Hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of
Sri V.S.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Revanur Police Station has filed Charge- sheet against the Accused in Crime No.1 of 2019 for the offence Under Sections 323, 506, 332 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are that:- 2(a). That on 02.01.2019 at about 5 PM, the Sub Inspector of
Police (LW9/J.Ramesh Kumar) along with staff LWs 1 to 5 (P.Moulali, P.C.3217,
K.Sriramulu, H.G.322, G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu Gopal, P.C.110 and
S.Mahaboob Basha, P.C.3375 respectively) are conducting vehicle checking in
C.C.No.70 of 2019 2 JMFC Court, KKL.
front of Revanur Police station at 5.30 PM, found one lorry came from Nandyal side in speedy manner. As per the instructions of the Sub Inspector of Police (LW9) the staff LWs 1 & 2 (P.Moulali, P.C.3217 and K.Sriramulu, H.G.322 respectively) stopped the lorry. But the lorry driver without stopping the lorry went to some distance in negligence manner. Then LWs 1 & 2 followed the lorry on motor cycle and stopped it near Kasireddi Nayana Ashramam, Kalugotla Village and stopped the lorry by parking the motor cycle on the road. Then LWs 1 & 2 (P.Moulali,
P.C.3217 and K.Sriramulu, H.G.322 respectively) enquired with the driver of lorry about his proceeding without stopping. The lorry driver replied in reckless manner, on that they advised him to come to the Police station, but he warned them do what they want he could not return. At that time, the Accused used the words that why they have stopped the lorry about their stopping on uniform. So saying opened the door, the Accused kicked him (LW1/P.Moulali, P.C.3217) with his leg, due to which he fell down. On knowing the same, the Head Constable 2405 and PCs 110 and 3375 (LWs 3 to 5/G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu Gopal, P.C.110 and S.Mahaboob
Basha, P.C.3375 respectively) went to the scene of offence on motor cycles and all they were brought the driver of lorry to the Police station. The Sub Inspector of
Police (LW9) examined the condition of the Accused with Breath Analyzer and found that he was in drunken state.
2(b). On 02.01.2019, at 18-40 hours, based on the Special
Report of LWs 1 & 2 (P.Moulali, P.C.3217 and K.Sriramulu, H.G.322 respectively), a Case in Cr.No.01 of 2019 under Sections 323, 506, 332 IPC and Section 185
Motor Vehicles Act of Revanur P.S was registered and investigated by Sub
Inspector of Police (LW9). Further, he examined the police staff as LW-1 to LW-5 (P.Moulali, P.C.3217, K.Sriramulu, H.G.322, G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu
Gopal, P.C.110 and S.Mahaboob Basha, P.C.3375 respectively) and recorded their
Statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C at Revanur P.S. After that Sub Inspector
C.C.No.70 of 2019 3 JMFC Court, KKL.
of Police (LW9) went along with PC 3217 (LW1/P.Moulali) to Government Hospital,
Nandyal for treatment of P.C.No.3217 (LW1). On 03.01.2019, he visited Kalugotla
Village and examined LW6 and LW7 (Mallu Nagi Reddy and Gangala Chandra
Sekhar Reddy @ Kampamalla Chandra Sekhar Reddy respectively) and recorded their statements also prepared Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police (LW9) arrested the Accused on 02.01.2019 at 22.00 hours in Revanur PS and sent him for judicial custody.
2(c). The Medical Officer, Government District Hospital,
Nandyal who treated the LW1/P.Moulali issued Wound Certificate and opined that he received simple injury. The Medical Officer, Government District Hospital,
Nandyal who treated the Accused and issued Drunken Certificate that the Accused consumed Alcohol, but it is not under its influence. Subsequently, after completion of all legal formalities, he filed Charge sheet against the Accused under the above section of law.
3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offence
Under Sections 323, 506, 332 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Accused and issued Summons.
4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The Accused was examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the Charge sheet is read over and explained to him in Vernacular.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the Trial, the Prosecution has examined totally five witnesses as
PW 1 to PW7 and Exs.P1 to P8 got marked. Hence, the Prosecution evidence is closed.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 4 JMFC Court, KKL.
7. The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.
9.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the Accused for the offence under sections 323, 506, 332 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act as alleged or otherwise?”
P O I N T :-
10.To prove the Case, the Prosecution has examined the PW1 to PW7 in this case. The PW1 is the Defacto Complainant in this case. He deposed in his evidence that, on 02-01-2019, at about 17.00 hours, he along with LW2 to LW5 (K.Sriramulu, H.G.322, G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu Gopal, P.C.110 and
S.Mahaboob Basha, P.C.3375 respectively) and LW9/Sub Inspector of Police were conducting vehicle checking infront of Revanur P.S. then one lorry bearing number
AP 02 TB 8859 driven by driver in High speed and negligent manner and went away without stopping the lorry. Then on the directions of the LW9/ Sub Inspector of Police, he and LW2 K.Sreeramulu tried to stop the lorry. They chased the lorry and tried to stop the lorry at Revanur turning, but he did not stop. Some how, they stopped the lorry near Kasireddy Nayana Asramam, Kalugotla Village by putting their motor cycle across the road. Then, he asked the Accused as to why he has not stopped the lorry. He replied that “Nakodakallara meeru apithe apala”. Then he asked him [Accused] to come to the Police station and he [PW1] tried to open the door to apprehend the Accused. Then, the Accused kicked him on his chest with his legs. The PW1 fell down and subsequently, he caught hold him and informed to
LW3/G.Maddileti and LW4/ M.Venugopal, as such, the said LW3 and LW4 came to
C.C.No.70 of 2019 5 JMFC Court, KKL.
him and took the Accused to the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police tested the Accused with Breath Analyzer and found that the Accused was in drunken state. The PW1 reached police station at 18.30 hours and found that the accused was in drunken state and that the PW1 reached police station at 18.30 hours and gave a Report to the LW9/Sub Inspector of Police. Due to pain in chest, the PW1 went to Government Hospital, Nandyal for treatment. The Sub Inspector of Police also took the Accused to the Hospital and got conducted drunken check up by the
Medical Officer concerned. The Medical Officer also confirmed that the Accused is in drunken state. Ex.P.1 is his Report. Police examined and recorded his statement.
10[a].During the Cross Examination of the PW1, he admitted that generally the Role Call would be conducted at 17.00 hours. On the date of the alleged incident also Role Call was conducted in the police station by LW9/Sub
Inspector of Police. He also admitted that in the duties would be allotted in the role call. He denied that the Passports would be allotted to the police personnel after
Role Call. He was not allotted any duty on the date of alleged incident. He does not know whether every police station maintain a registers with regard to vehicle checking or not. Vehicle checking was commenced immediately after the role call on the date of alleged incident. Prior to the said lorry passed from the checking point, they already checked at about 10 vehicles. The distance between the police station and Kasinayana Asramam is about 2 1½ Kms. He admitted that there are surveillance of C.C. C.C. Cameras near Kasinayana Asramam. At 17.30 hours, he was present near Revanur Police Station. He prepared Ex.P1/Report in the police station at 19.00 hours on the date of alleged offence. Himself, the Accused, LW9
Sub Inspector of Police and some other constables went to Government Hospital,
Nandyal. The Accused was examined by the Medical Officer in between 19.45 hours to 20.00 hours at Government Hospital, Nandyal. He denied that the
C.C.No.70 of 2019 6 JMFC Court, KKL.
Accused was not examined by the Medical Officer in between 19.45 hours to 20.00 hours at Government Hospital, Nandyal and that the Sub Inspector of Police has not conducted any breath analyzer test and that that he was deposing false.
10[b].During the Cross Examination of the PW1, he deposed that he has not signed in Column 14 of the First Information Report. He has informed to the Medical Officer about as to how he sustained injuries and also about the assailant. He admitted that, by the time, he informed about assailant to the Medical Officer, he knows his name. He denied that he informed the Medical
Officer as some unknown person assaulted him. He admitted that the said
Kasinayana Asramam is busy locality always gathered with public. The LW2
Sreeramulu informed to LW9/Sub Inspector of Police over phone about assault.
Subsequent to arrival of the police personnel no incident occurred. The LW3 to
LW5 (G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu Gopal, P.C.110 and S.Mahaboob Basha,
P.C.3375 respectively) came to the place of occurrence by 18.15 hours. The LW9
Sub Inspector of of Police has not arrived to the place of occurrence. When he reached to the police station from Kasinayana Ashram along with accused and other police constables, no vehicle checking was being conducted infront of the police station. They brought the lorry to the police station. He does not know at what time the lorry was brought to the police station. He denied that no incident was occurred at the time stated by him at Kasinayana Ashram. He also denied that the
Accused is not a driver of the lorry bearing number AP 02 TB 8859. He further denied that the accused has not assaulted him. He denied that he gave a false report against the accused and that he was deposing false.
11.The PW2 is the Home Guard, who worked at Revanur Police Station.
He deposed that on 02-01-2019 at about 17.00 hours, he, PW1 and L.W3 to LW5 (G.Maddilety, H.C.2405, M.Venu Gopal, P.C.110 and S.Mahaboob Basha,
C.C.No.70 of 2019 7 JMFC Court, KKL.
P.C.3375 respectively) and LW9/Sub Inspector of Police were conducting vehicle checking infront of Revanur P.S. then one lorry bearing number AP 02 TB 5589 proceeding from Nandyal towards Koilakuntla driven by its driver in High speed and negligent manner and went away without stopping the lorry. Then on the directions of the LW9/Sub Inspector of Police, he along with PW1 tried to stop the lorry. They chased the lorry and tried to stop the lorry at Revanur turning, but he did not stop.
Some how, they stopped the lorry near Kasireddy Nayana Asramam, Kalugotla
Village by putting our motor cycle across the road. Then, the PW1 asked the
Accused as to why he has not stopped the lorry. The Accused replied that “Nakodakallara meeru apithe apala”. Then PW1 asked him [Accused] to come to the Police station and PW1 tried to open the door to apprehend the accused. Then, the Accused kicked PW1 on his chest with legs. The PW1 fell down. The Village elders Nagi Reddy and Gangala Chandra Sekhar Reddy and others came there and separated the Accused and P.W.1. Later, PW1 caught hold him and informed to LW3/G.Maddileti and LW4/M.Venugopal. The LW3 and LW4 came to him and took the Accused to the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police tested the
Accused with breath analyzer and found that the accused was in drunken state.
PW1 reached police station at 18.30 hours and gave a report to the LW9/Sub
Inspector of Police. Due to pain in chest, the PW1 went to Government Hospital,
Nandyal for treatment. Police examined and recorded his statement.
11(a).During the Cross Examination of the PW2, he deposed that the Sub Inspector of Police conducted drunken checking with breath analyzer in the police station. He admitted that there are speed breakers infront of the
Revanur Police station on both sides. He denied that there are no sign boards infront of the police station on the date of alleged offence. He also admitted that he was the Jeep driver of Revanur Police station. He also admitted that roll call would
C.C.No.70 of 2019 8 JMFC Court, KKL.
held at 17.00 hours regularly in the Police station. He further admitted that the duties will be allotted to the staff members during roll call. He also admitted that no duties would be allotted to him. The Sub Inspector of Police has maintained a
Register for the vehicle checking conducted by him on the date of alleged offence.
He admitted that he has not seen the Accused when the lorry passed infront of the police station. The distance between the police station and Kasireddy Ashramam is at about 1½ KM. The Sub Inspector of Police orally instructed him to chase the lorry. The PW1 gave a Report in the police station at 18.30 hours. He admitted that the Ashramam area is a busy locality as free food would be provided at all the times. He has not not taken any records from the lorry. The Sub Inspector of Police has not arrived to the place of occurrence on the alleged date of offence. He was present at the police station at 17.30 hours. The alleged offence at Kasireddy
Ashramam took place at around 18.00 hours. He went to the police station at 18.40 hours. They took the Accused to Government Hospital, Nandyal. He does not remember the time of going to Government Hospital, Nandyal. There are no C.C.
cameras at Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam. He denied that he never went to the
Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam at the date of alleged offence and that there are C.C.
cameras in the place of occurrence and that he was deposing false. He also denied that no incident took place in the manner stated by him.
12.The PW3 is the Police Constable, who worked at Revanur Police
Station. He deposed the similar version of the PW2 with regard to all the material aspects.
12(a).During the Cross Examination of the PW3, he admitted that, generally the role call would be conducted at 17.00 hours. On the date of the alleged incident also role call was conducted in the police station by L.W.9/Sub
Inspector of Police. He also admitted that in the duties would be allotted in the role
C.C.No.70 of 2019 9 JMFC Court, KKL.
call. He denied that the passports would be allotted to the police personnel after role call. He was allotted night sentry duty on the date of alleged incident and he was expected to took up duty at 21.00 hours. Till such time, he has no duty. He was allotted Revanuru Village for his regular duties. He also admitted that there are speed breakers on either side of the police station infront of the police station. He has not noticed to the driver, who drove the lorry at the time of passing infront the
Revanur P.S. He reached Kasinayana Ashramam at 18.30 hours. He did not accompany PW1 and PW2 to the Revanur turning to stop the lorry. Witness adds that the same was informed to him by PW1 and PW2. He also admitted that he has not seen the accused kicking the PW1 and PW2 or scolding them or beating them.
He further admitted that he has not the witnessed the incident personally at
Kasireddy Nayana Asramam and the same was informed by PW1 and PW2 to him after the incident. The LW9/Sub Inspector of Police examined him in the police station and recorded his statement at 20.30 hours on the same date of the alleged incident. He denied that LW9/Sub Inspector of Police has not conducted any breath analyzer test over the accused. He further denied that no incident was occurred at the time stated by him at Kasinayana Ashram. He also denied that the
Accused is not a driver of the lorry. He also denied that no incident took place in the manner stated by him and that he was deposing false as the defacto complainant is his colleague.
13.The PW4 is the independent witnesses in this case. He deposed that, he does not know the Accused. He does not know LW7/ G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy.
Witness again says that he himself and LW7/ G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy went to the place of occurrence. Witness again says that himself and L.W.7 G.Chandra Sekhar
Reddy were present at Kasireddy Ashram and then a quarrel took place between the police and one lorry driver and on noticing a mob they went there. Witness
C.C.No.70 of 2019 10 JMFC Court, KKL.
again says that by the time they went to the place of occurrence that no body was present in the place of occurrence. Witness again say that he signed on some papers at request of police. At this stage, the learned A.P.P. sought permission of the Court to treat the Witness as hostile, and to cross examine him. Perused the records. Permission is granted. He denied that police examined and recorded his statement and that he stated to the police as stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C
Statement. He denied that he was deposing false to help the accused.
13(a).During the Cross examination of the PW4, he admitted that he has personally not seen the alleged incident. He further admitted that he was an village elder in Revanur. He further that regularly, he used to attend police station and used to signed on Panchanamas in the police station.
14.The PW5 is another independent witnesses in this case. He turned hostile.
15.The PW6 is the Medical Officer in this case. He deposed in his evidence that, on 02.01.2019 at about 19.55 hours, he examined PW1/P.Moulali who was accompanied by J.Ramesh Kumar of Revanur Village who said to have been received injuries due to assault by unknown person with legs on 02.01.2019 at about 17.30 hours. The PW1 reported chest pain. Accordingly, he advised the
X-Ray Chest. The said Report do not disclose any injuries and shows bony cage and soft tissue appear normal. Accordingly, he issued wound certificate opining that the said injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P4 is the Wound certificate.
15 (a).During the Cross Examination of the PW6, he admitted that the said Ramesh Kumar who brought the PW1 did not disclose his identity. He further admitted that in case of medico legal cases, the investigating officer will issue a Memo to the Medical Officer for examination of the injured. He also
C.C.No.70 of 2019 11 JMFC Court, KKL.
admitted that no memo was issued to him in the present case. He denied that he was issued Ex.P4 wound certificate at the instance of police.
16.The PW7 is the Investigating Officer in this case. He deposed in his evidence in tune with the contents of the Charge sheet averments.
16(a).During the Cross Examination of the PW7, he admitted that he was not the direct witness for the facts stated by the PW1. He further admitted that he was not the direct witness for the alleged incident as stated by
PW4 and PW5. He denied that he has not examined PW4 and PW5 and that PW4 and PW5 have not stated before him as stated in Ex.P2 and P3. He examined PW1 to PW3 on 02.01.2019. He cannot say the exact time of examination of PW1 to
PW3. PW1 to PW3 came to the police station at 18.00 hours. He knows the provisions of police standing orders. He admitted that there is difference in special report and also the report to the police. He denied that the special report would be prepared in the place of occurrence itself, and the PW1 gave him a special report.
He has not obtained the signature of PW1 at column No.14 of the First Information
Report. He took the Roll call on the date of the alleged incident at 17.00 hours. He conducted vehicle checking and roll call at the same time. He has not produced any record before the court to show that he has conducted vehicle checking on the date of the alleged incident. He also admitted that there are speed breakers infront of the police station on both sides of the police station. He has not noticed the number of persons present in the lorry at the time the alleged incident. He visited the place of occurrence on the next day of the incident. He has seized the documents of the lorry such as License, Registration Certificate and forwarded them to the Court. He also admitted that he has not shown license and Registration Certificate in the list of documents of the charge sheet. He also denied that he has not seized the documents of the lorry such as license of the driver and registration certificate etc.,
C.C.No.70 of 2019 12 JMFC Court, KKL.
Witness adds that he seized xerox copies only. He further denied that he has not forwarded those xerox copies to the court. During his investigation, he has not examined the owner of the lorry and not recorded his statement. He denied that he has not forwarded any record to the court to show that the accused is the driver of the lorry at the time of the alleged incident. He has not seized the lorry. He issued a memo to the medical officer to conduct medical examination of the PW1. He denied that he has not given any memo to the medical officer to conduct the medical examination of PW1. He took the PW1 to the hospital for medical examination and he forwarded the accused to the medical officer for medical examination through one police constable. He also denied that he has not disclosed my identity to the medical officer. He has not verified whether there are goods in the lorry or not. He does not know whether the lorry is loaded or unloaded one. He denied that no offence took place in the manner stated by him and that the accused does not has any criminal record and that he was deposing false. He also denied that he has not conducted breath analyzer test. He also denied that he was deposing false and that he was foisted a false case against the accused.
17.Heard on both sides.
18.As seen from the case record, on 02-01-2019 at about 06-00 PM, near
Kalugotla Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam, wherein the Accused drove the lorry in drunken state in a rash and negligent manner proceeding from Nandyal to
Koilakuntla side, without stopping and proceeded when the Complainant stopped the lorry while he was in vehicle checking the duty. The Complainant and one
Home Guard went in a Motor cycle to caught hold the Vehicle, and at that time, the
Complainant asked the act of the accused, for which, the Accused abused and kicked the Complainant with his leg and obstructed while he was performing his duties. Basing on the Report, Revanur Police registered a Case against the
C.C.No.70 of 2019 13 JMFC Court, KKL.
Accused for the offence under sections 323, 506, 332 of IPC and Section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
19.The learned APP argued that by examining the PWs1 to 7 and by marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, the Prosecution has proved that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.323, 506, 332 IPC and Section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and prayed to convict the Accused.
20.On the other hand the learned counsel for accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence and there is no corroboration in the evidence of the Pws1 to 3 and PW6 and PW7 in respect of the manner of offence. The investigating officer failed to investigate the case properly and failed to examine the independent witnesses at the scene of offence. He did not produce any proof to show that the Pws.1 to 3 are on duty at the time of alleged offence and entire prosecution witnesses belongs the same department. The evidence of the Pws.1 to 3 is inconsistent and prayed to acquit the accused. Further, the PW1 did not state the Lorry Number properly. As such, the Lorry stopped by the PW1 is different and the lorry seized by the Investigation Officer is another one. Further, there is no evidence to show that the Accused is a driver of the lorry and prayed to Acquit the
Accused.
Sec.332 IPC reads as :-
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter the Public Servant from his duty :
whoever, voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as a public servant or with an intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such, public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done, by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
C.C.No.70 of 2019 14 JMFC Court, KKL.
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
21.On perusal of the entire evidence, available on record, it is not disputed that the PW1 to PW3 are not the public servants. There is nothing on record, to doubt the testimony of the PW1 to PW3 that, the assault on the
PW1.
22.Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, describes the Public
Servant. The Police Officers including the Constables fall under this
Definition, because their duties involve preventing and investigating crimes and maintaining law and order and protecting the public.
23.On perusal of the material available on record, and on perusal of the evidence of the PW1 to PW3 and PW6 and PW7, it is clear that the galata took place at Kasireddy nayana Ashramam, at Kalugotla Village. The evidence of the
PW4, who turned hostile also supports that a galata took place between police personnel and one individual. The evidence of the PW5 do not confirm the said individual as the Accused. But his evidence confirms the occurrence of the alleged offence. On perusal of the evidence of the PW1, he states the lorry number as
AP02TB-8859, but whereas Ex.P1/Report shows the lorry number as AP02TB- 5589. The learned Counsel for the Accused submitted that there is difference in the lorry number. This Court do not see any force in the said contention. The alleged offence took place on 02-01-2019 and the evidence of the PW1/Defacto
Complainant was recorded on 01-08-2024. i.e., after lapse of 6 years, for which, it is not possible to a human to remember the lorry number. But, on perusal of the evidence there is no denial that the Accused is not a driver of the lorry. Further, even if the same is denied, it do not shake the root of the Case of the Prosecution.
The evidence of the PW1 to PW3, and the Investigation Officer i.e., PW7 clearly
C.C.No.70 of 2019 15 JMFC Court, KKL.
shows that the Accused kicked the PW1 and caused hurt to him. If the Accused is not the driver of the Crime Vehicle lorry, as to why he was present in the lorry at the time, the PW1 and PW2 stopped the lorry at Kasireddy Nayana Ashramam, at
Kalugotla Village, was not explained by the Accused. That shows that the Accused was present in the lorry and drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner without stopping the same at Revanur Police Station. Mere making a suggestion in the
Cross Examination of the Prosecution Witnesses by the Defence Counsel, that, do not mean that, the said fact is proved or disproved.
24.The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarath in Umedmiya R.Rathod Vs the
State of Gujarath, reported in AIR 2017 [NOC] 1146 GUJ– it is observed that, “mere Suggestions made during the Cross Examination without being supported by the evidence, or in sufficient to establish a case or disprove the opposing party’s case; the Court relies on evidence not just suggestion to reach a conclusion”.
25.Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Gowhati in between the State Vs.
Md. Misir Ali and others reported in 1963 CriLJ 255 - it is observed that “ mere suggestions not supported by any specific statements made by the Accused persons and not supported by any Defence evidence would have no evidentiary value. No importance could be attached to the above suggestions made during the
Cross Examination of the PW1 and PW3 in this case. In any case, as the burden of establishing the guilt of an Accused person is always on the Prosecution, the question whether the Charges had been made out against the Accused persons will have to be determined with reference to the Prosecution evidence adduced in the case.” 26.On perusal of the material available on record, except the lorry number, the PW1 has not stated anything contrary to his previous statements.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 16 JMFC Court, KKL.
Further, it is not denied that the Accused was not picked up from the lorry from the scene of offence i.e., from Kasireddy Nayana Ashramama, Kalugotla Village. The evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses shows that, the Accused was picked up from the lorry from the place of occurrence by placing the motor cycle of the PW1 across the Road. The evidence further shows that the Accused assaulted and caused hurt to the PW1 as defined Section 319 of the IPC. The definition of hurt contemplates causing of pain by a person to another and the causing of pain being sufficient to constitute hurt, it is not necessary that there should be a visible injury caused on the person/victim nor it is necessary that injury should be received by physical contact. Causing pain by any voluntary act is sufficient.
27.On perusal of the Ex.P7/Breath Analyzer Test Slip, the content printed therein is not visible and there is nothing on record, to show that the accused was in drunken state and his Report shows more than 30 mg/per 100 ml. As such, the
Accused is acquitted for the offence under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
28.On perusal of the Wound Certificate/Ex.P4, it is established that the
Accused voluntarily caused hurt to the PW1 and thereby caused hurt to the PW1 who is public servant in discharge of his duty.
29.On perusal of the evidence of the PW1 to PW3, their evidence is completely silent about the words uttered by the accused and the manner of threat or insult caused to the PW1 by the accused. The evidence of the PW1 only discloses that the Accused stated as “Naakodakallara, meeru aapithe Aapala”.
Except that he did not reveal any words uttered by the Accused. Mere use of abusive words will come within the purview of the Sec.506 IPC. There is nothing on record, which attracts the offence Under section 506 IPC.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 17 JMFC Court, KKL.
30.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and another Vs.
State of UP and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw SC 624 - their lordships observed that - Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the Accused No.1 and 2 intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
C.C.No.70 of 2019 18 JMFC Court, KKL.
knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant.
32.Though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the
Prosecution Witnesses, they do not shake the root of the case of the Prosecution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachalapradesh Vs. Lekh
Raj reported in [2003] 1 SCC 247 - it is observed that, the discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction whereas, contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the Case. Minor discrepancy or variants in evidence will not make the Prosecution Case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancy in law may render credential to the deposition.
Parrot like statements are disfavour by the course, in order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the Case, by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which, such witness was making the statement.
33.On perusal of the present facts of the case, Prosecution Witnesses did not state anything about the criminal intimidation caused by the Accused and thus the Prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 19 JMFC Court, KKL.
34. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 506 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and thereby, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C and the
Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 332, 323 of IPC and he is convicted for the same under section 248 [2] of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my diction directly on System by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 8 th day of April, 2025.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Koilakuntla.
35.On appearance of the Accused, Judgment is pronounced. As the
Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 323 of IPC and hence, he is convicted for the same Under Section 248(2) Cr.PC. The
Accused is informed about his right to prefer an Appeal. On being questioned, he submitted that he has sufficient means to engage an Advocate to prefer an Appeal.
An opportunity is given to the Accused with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The Accused pleaded mercy and submitted he is having old aged parents and is the sole bread winner of his family and there is no one to look-after his family and hence prays to take lenient view.
36.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and manner in committing the offence, I feel that Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable to the present case. I feel that imposition of fine, would meet the ends of the justice.
37. In the result, the Accused is convicted Under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 323 of IPC and the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] for the
C.C.No.70 of 2019 20 JMFC Court, KKL.
offence punishable under section 332 of IPC and in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees
One Thousand only] for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The Remand Period, if any undergone by the Accused, shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Total fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Section 332 of IPC) + Rs.1,000/- (Section 323 of IPC) =
Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only).
The Accused is hereby informed about his Right to Appeal before the
Hon’ble Sessions Court. The unmarked Case Property shall be destroyed after
expiry of the Appeal time.
The office is directed to prepare the Conviction Warrants accordingly. Office is further directed to supply a Copy of the Judgment to the Accused forthwith at free of cost. Typed to my diction directly on System by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 8 th day of April, 2025.
Judl. Magistrate of the First Class, Koilakuntla.
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For the Prosecution For the Defence
PW1 : P.Moulali [Police Constable] None
PW2 : K.Sreeramulu [Police Constable].
PW3 : M.Venu Gopal.
PW4 : M.Nagi Reddy.
PW5 : G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 21 JMFC Court, KKL.
PW6 : Dr.Saba [Medical Officer]
PW7 : J.Ramesh Kumar [Investigating Officer]
Exhibits Marked
For the Prosecution :-
Ex.P1 : Report of the PW1.
Ex.P2 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW4.
Ex.P3 : Section 161 [3] Cr.P.C. Statement of the PW5.
Ex.P4 : Wound Certificate of the PW1.
Ex.P5 : First Information Report.
Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch.
Ex.P7 : Slip generated by Breath Analyzer.
Ex.P8 : Medical Certificate of the Accused issued by the Medical Officer.
For the Defence :-
N o n e.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR :-
N I L.
J.M.F.C., KKL.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 22 JMFC Court, KKL.
Judgment
C.C.No.70 of 2019
Dt : 08-04-2025
C.C.No.70 of 2019 23 JMFC Court, KKL.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KOILAKUNTLA
Calendar Case No.70 OF 2019
1.Date of offence02-01-2019
2.Date of report02-01-2019
3.Date of filing12-03-2019
4.Date of appearance of the Accused13-06-2019
5.Date of commencement of trial01-08-2024
6.Date of completion of trial11-02-2025
7.Date of Judgment08-04-2025
8.ComplainantState represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Revanur P.S. in Crime No.1 of 2019) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Calling Religion Residence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Son of Khasim Peera, Aged 25 years, Resident of
Keshapuram Village, Kotha Cheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offences : Voluntarily causing simple hurt; Criminal Intimidation; voluntarily causes hurt to a public servant to deter them from performing their duty ; Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
U/Section : 323, 506, 332 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 506 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 323, 332 of IPC.
O R D E R: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under
Sections 506 of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and thereby, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 [1] of Cr.P.C and the Accused is found guilty for the offence under section 332, 323 of IPC and he is convicted for the same under section 248 [2] of Cr.P.C.
C.C.No.70 of 2019 24 JMFC Court, KKL.
The Accused is convicted Under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 323 of IPC and the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] for the offence punishable under section 332 of IPC and in-default-of-payment-of-fine, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Further, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only] for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The Remand Period, if any undergone by the Accused, shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Total fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- (Section 332 of IPC) + Rs.1,000/- (Section 323 of IPC) = Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only).
The Accused is hereby informed about his Right to Appeal before the
Hon’ble Sessions Court. The unmarked Case Property shall be destroyed after
expiry of the Appeal time.
Judl.Magistrate of the First Class, Koilakuntla.
Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Copy to the Accused at free of Cost.