Smt. Shalini Shakelli

5 1IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT ACHAMPET

Monday, this the 15th day of July, 2019

Present: Smt. Shalini Shakelli, Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet.

C.C. No. 251 of 2017

Between:

The State represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Uppununthala …Complainant

And

Gopireddy Jaipal Reddy, S/o: Ram Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Driver, R/o: Saroornagar ,Rangareddy district.

...Accused

Section of law: Section 324, 504, 506 of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.PC.

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Shri Lakshmi Narayana Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused has arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 of IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

(a) The Sub Inspector of Police, Uppununthala has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 14.06.2017 at about 1900 hours, PW.5 lodged a complaint stating that on 14.06.2017 at about 1400 hours, the accused person was cultivating the land which was being cultivated by PW.5. That when PW.5 questioned the accused as to why he was cultivating the land, the accused person bet him with a stick on his left hand, buttocks and back side and further abused him in filthy language and further threatened to kill him.

5

(b) During the course of investigation, PW.8 registered this case against the accused vide Cr. No.3/2018. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused by LW.9/ B. Mohan Babu.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 5064 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

5. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 of IPC. A charge has been framed for the said offence, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on its behalf.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for defence and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

9.Now, the point that arises for consideration herein is: ‘whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

10.Point: PW.1 Niranjan and PW.2 Bhasker have deposed that they do not know anything about the case and that the police have never examined them.

11. PW.3 Madhava Reddy and PW.4 Gangaiah have deposed that they do not know anything about the present case and that the police have never conducted any panchanama in their presence.

12.PW.5 Srinivas Reddy deposed that he had taken the land of his younger brother by name Niranjan Reddy on lease and that about two years ago, the 5 accused was ploughing the said land which was already ploughed by him. He deposed that when he questiond the accused as to why he was ploughing the land of Nagarjun Reddy, the accused person bet him with a stick on his head, hands and on his waist. He further deposed that the accused person threatened to kill him if he ventured to plough the land of Nagarjun Reddy. During the course of his cross examination, he stated that he had stated before the police as well as in the 161 statement that he sustained injuries on his head. He stated that he had not mentioned the survey number of the land where the incident took place. He further stated that he had not mentioned the mode in which the land was ploughed by the accused person on the day of the incident.

13.PW.6 Kalavathamma deposed that PW.5 had taken the land of his younger brother by name Niranjan Reddy on lease and that about two years ago, the accused was ploughing the said land which was already ploughed by PW.5. She deposed that when PW.5 questiond the accused as to why he was ploughing the land of Nagarjun Reddy, the accused person bet PW.5 with a stick on his head, hands and on his waist. She further deposed that the accused person threatened to kill PW.5 if he ventured to plough the land of Nagarjun Reddy. She further deposed that the incident was witnessed by PW.1 and PW.2 and that PW.1 and

PW.2 have rescued PW.5 from the hands of the accused person. During the course of her cross examination, she stated that she had not witnessed the incident. She further stated that she had not stated before the police the description of the stick which was used by the accused.

14.PW.7 Dr. P. Shiva Kumar deposed that he received the requisition from PW.8 for examining PW.5 and found that PW.5 sustained simple injuries. During the course of his cross examination. He stated that he had not mentioned the time at which he examined PW.5. He further stated that he had not mentioned the OP/IP number on the medical report of PW.5. He further stated that the injuries sustained by PW.5 might be caused due to fall on a rough surface.

15.PW.8 M. Naga Sheshaji deposed that on 14.06.2017 at about 1900 hours he received a complaint from PW.5 and basing on the complaint he registered a case against the accused person. He deposed that he examined PW.1 and PW.5 at the police station and referred PW.5 to the hospital for treatment. He further deposed that he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.3 and

PW.4. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of PW.2 and PW.6 at the scene. During the course of his cross examination he stated that as per the rough sketch of the scene of offence the scene of offence place is shown as the land of Jaipal Reddy.

5

14.The evidence of LW.9/ B. Mohan Babu was given up the learned APP and hence the evidence of LW.9/ B. Mohan Babu has been closed.

15.PW.5 is the complainant. PW.1 and PW.2 are the eye witnesses of the present case. PW.6 is the circumstantial witness. PW.3 and PW.4 are the panch witnesses and PW.7 is the doctor and PW.8 is the investigating officer. PW.5 who is the complainant in his testimony stated that the said incident took place in the agricultural field of one Nagarjun Reddy who is the younger brother of PW.5.

However the rough sketch of the scene of offence shows that the scene of offence place is the land of G. Jaipal Reddy. Hence there is contradiction with regard to the exact location where the alleged incident took place. On a careful perusal of the testimony of PW.6 it can be seen that PW.6 stated that PW.1 and PW.2 have witnessed the accused person beating PW.5. However PW.1 and PW.2 have stated that they do not know anything about the case filed by PW.5 against the accused person and therefore turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses have also turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.

16.PW.5 stated in his testimony that the accused person bet him with a stick.

However the stick whoch is alleged to have been used by the accused person in committing the alleged offence has not been seized by the investigating officer.

PW.6 herself stated that she had not witnessed the accused beating PW.5. Hence the evidence of PW.6 can be treated as hearsay evidence. PW.1 and PW.2 who are the only eye witnesses to the alleged incident have turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution. The above observation clearly shows that there is no enough material on record to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused person is entitled for acquittal.

Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused person and against the prosecution.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437-A Cr.PC.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 15th day of July, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Achampet.

5

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW.1 M. Niranjan

PW.2 K. Bhasker

PW.3 Gopireddy Mashava Reddy

PW.4 K. Gangaiah

PW.5 Gopireddy Srinivas Reddy

Pw.6 Gopireddy Kalavathamma

PW.7 Dr. P. Shiva Kumar

Pw.8 M. Nagasheshaji

Defence:

-None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 161 Statement of PW.1

Ex.P2 161 Statement of PW.2

Ex.P3 Signature of PW.3 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P4 Signature of PW.4 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5 Complaint

Ex.P6 Medical Report of PW.5

Ex.P7 FIR

Ex.P8 Scene of Offence Panchanama.

Defence:

- Nil-

Material Objects marked -- NIL --

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, 5

Achampet.

IN THE COURT OF HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT:: ACHAMPET

Present:-Sri. DASHARATHA RAMAIAH

JMFC, Achampet

CC No. 199 of 2017

Between:- Anjireddy R/O Miryalaguda village ….Complainant.

And

Kumar R/O Paroma village

.... Accused.

O C K E T O R D E R, Dt 15-07-2019 D

NBW pending on the accused Report filed by the police

stating that accused is dead. Death certificate of the accused

has been filed in view of the Death certificate. the case is

closed.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Achampet.