Sugali Narayana

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT: GADWAL.

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal. Dated this the 8th day of September, 2014.

C.C.No. 79 of 2006.

Between:

The State of A.P. Represented by P.S.Gadwal Town. … Complainant. AND 1.Trinadha S/o. Sathyanarayana, age: 38 years, Occ: Teacher,

2. Smt. Praveena W/o. Trinadha , age: 21 years,

3. Smt. Narsamma W/o. Sathyanarayana age: 68 years, All are R/o. Amparvelli, Vijayanagaram Dist. … Accused 1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri.S.Suresh, counsel for all the

Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Gadwal Town has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.11/2006 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A & 494

R/w.109 of IPC& Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, against the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 07.02.2006 the complainant Smt. A.Subhashini lodged report stating that on 08.03.2004 at Gadwal her marriage was performed with

Accused No.1 B.Trinadha, at the time of their marriage her parents gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-to Accused No.1. After marriage they stayed at

Rajamandry, as her husband got T.P.T training. She further mentioned in her report that later her parents gave Rs.50,000/-towards motorcycle as per agreement. They lead peaceful life for four months. Later she was insisted to bring one lakh rupees to purchase a flat in apartment at Vizag. As her parents are not in a position to give money, but any how the Lw1 got arranged the amount of one lakh taking loan from her friends and gave to her husband. After some days her husband demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her parents or to accept his 2nd marriage with her sister’s daughter. The Lw.1 also mentioned in her report that Accused

No.1 used to abuse, beat every day, harassment by physically and mentally. Narsamma mother-in-law also harassed her. She could not tolerate the harassment of the accused and came to Gadwal in January, 2005 and staying with her parents. She was delivered female child in July 2005. Since then neither husband not mother-in-law come to her to see the child. The complainant further stated that without her knowledge on 01.06.2005 her husband performed 2nd marriage with his sister’s daughter

Praveena. Lw.12 registered the case, and Lw.13 filed the charge sheet against all the accused, after completion of investigation.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences under sections 498-A & 494 of IPC, against the accused on 01.04.2006.

4. After appearance of all the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under section 498-A & 494 of

IPC. Hence charges were framed under Section 240(1) of Cr.P.C. and the contents there of were read over and explained to the accused in telugu under Section 240(2) of Cr.P.C.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 and Ex.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined. After completion of the prosecution evidence, all the accused were examined U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference of prosecution evidence of Pw1 to Pw8, for which all the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defense evidence, on their behalf.

6. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offences punishable U/s.498-A& 494 of IPC, against all the accused?.

8. POINT:- It is the simple case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 & 3 caused cruelty and harassment to the Pw1 and also the accused No.1 got second marriage with accused No.2, the accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1. It is also further the case of the prosecution that during subsisting of marriage with Pw.1, the accused No.1 and accused No.2 got married each other. In order to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of the Pw.1 to 8. The Pw.1 is the victim, Pw.2 is her mother and Pws.3 & 4 are sisters of the Pw1. The Pw.5 is the photographer, and the Pw6 is pastor, who performed the marriage of Pw1 and accused

No.1. The Pws 7 and 8 are investigation officers. The Ex.P1 is the report lodged by the pw1. Ex.P2 is the marriage wedding invitation card. The

E.P3 is four photos of A1 and Pw1 with negatives. The Ex.P4 is marriage

certificate. Ex.P5 is FIR, for the offences punishable U/s. 498–A, 494 of IPC.

9. Coming to the evidence of Pw1, A.Subhasini she deposed that accused No.1 is her husband accused No.2 is second wife of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is her mother-in-law. The Pw1 specifically deposed that on 08.03.2014 she was married to Accused No.1 as per Christian rights and customs at Gadwal town. It is also further specifically deposed by the Pw1 that at the time of her marriage her parents gave a net cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards dowry. It is also however specifically deposed by Pw1 that her parents gave Rs.50,000/-for purchasing vehicle for accused No.1 during

Telugu pandit training at Rajahmundry. She further deposed that they lived in one room in Rajahmundry in rented premises upto January 2005.

She further testified that accused No.1 started demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-for purchasing a flat in Vijayanaragaram, for which the Pw1 expressed her family inability to fulfill the said demands. The Pw1 also deposed against the accused No.3 that in the month of December accused No.1 and 3 started harassment physically and mentally demanding for Rs. 1,50,000/- and also threatened the Pw1, if the Pw1 is failed to bring the said money, The accused No.1 will go for second marriage. She further deposed that at the time she was pregnant and due to fear from the accused No.1 and 3 and she came to her parent’s house in the month of June 2005. The Pw1 categorically deposed that accused No.1 married accused No.2 without her knowledge, since then accused No.1 never came to see the Pw1 at the time of her delivery also. She further deposed that on 08.07.2005 she was blessed with a female child and the accused No.1 never came to see and took after her, and she put effects through phone to the accused No.1. But there was no response from the accused, then Pw1 lodged Ex.P1,

10. Coming to the evidence of Pw2 who is the mother of Pw1 she also deposed that the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with Pw1as per

Christian customs at Gadwal she has also specifically deposed that at the time of marriage on demand they gave Rs.1,50,000/-towards dowry to the accused. The evidence of Pw2 is totally corroborated with the evidence of

Pw1. Further Pw2 specifically deposed that at the instigation of accused

No.3, accused No.1 was harassing Pw1 by demanding additional dowry of

Rs. 1,00,000/-,somehow the Pw1 adjusted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and took the same to Rajahmundry and gave it to accused No.1. It is also specifically deposed by Pw2 that even after giving Rs. 1,00,000/-to the accused No.1 started Pw1 to get again additional dowry to perform the marriage of his sister’s daughter. She has also deposed that during pregnancy of Pw1, the accused or his mother did not come to her house.

When the Pw2 and others went to Rajahmundry and asked the accused

No.1 as to the second marriage with accused No.2, for which the accused

No.1 stated that do whatever you want. Ex.P2 is wedding invitation of Pw1 and accused No.1.

11. Coming to the evidence of Pw3 she is the sister of Pw1, she also deposed the same version of Pw1 and to the extent of the marriage between Pw1 and accused No.1 and the dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- given by her parents of the Pw1. Coming to the evidence of Pw4 she is the sister of

Pw1. She has also deposed the same version of Pw1, to 3 without contradictions. Coming to the evidence of Pw5 he is the Photographer, he specifically deposed that on 08.03.2004 he took photographs in the marriage function held in K.V.S. function hall. Ex.P3 is the four marriage photographs along with negatives. Coming to the evidence of Pw6 he is the pastor at M.B.Church II Railway gate at Gadwal, he further deposed that 08.03.2014, father of Pw1 approached him and stated that he intends to perform his daughter marriage that Trinadha i.e. accused No.1 herein. He further specifically deposed that since he has no marriage license and he took the father of Pw1 to senior poster by name A.Ross and the marriage date was fixed on 08.03.2014. He specifically deposed that he along

B.A.Ross attended the said marriage and the Ross performed the marriage.

It is specifically deposed by the Pw6 that said B.A.Ross was no more, and he is having acquaintance with signature of B.A.Ross and the prosecution got marked the Ex.P4 is the attested marriage certificate issued by the senior paster. He further deposed that Pw1 came to him and informed that the accused and his mother was harassing the Pw1 for additional dowry.

Coming to the evidence of Pw7 and 8 are investigation officers and their evidence shows that as per chronological order completed their investigation, and filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

12. It is specifically submitted by the learned APP that according to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court rendered in, Issa Venkateshwarlu Vs

State of AP, reported in 2008(3) (Crl.) 63, AP, wherein his lordship held that the demand of dowry by her husband or his parents amounts to cruelty. It was observed by his lordship that if a married women appears to stay at her parents in order to meet the illegal demand of her husband or relative of husband even stay at her parents’ house amounts to cruelty , hence it is a continuing offence.

13. It is the contentions of the learned counsel of the accused that there was no marriage performed between the Pw1 and Accused No.1 at all. It is further contention of the accused that the Pw1 and her sister used to get marriage, in order to extract money and they are staying with their mother only. The accused No.2 was falsely implicated by the Pw1 and her family members to harass him and extract money from accused No.1. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of Pw1 to 4 is not enough for conviction. The learned counsel for the accused as also relied up on a judgment between N.Swarna Vs N.Suryanarayana and others, reported in 2009 (2) ALD(crl) 450 (AP), wherein it was held by his lordship that mere admission of second marriage by the accused, not sufficient to sustain conviction-complainant has to prove that the accused married another person according to Hindu law during subsistence of first marriage. The learned counsel for the accused has also relied up on another judgment between Cheruku Umapathi Vs State of AP, reported in 2005 (1)

ALD(crl)21 (AP), wherein its lordship held that the evidence of Pws2,3 and 4 is nature of hearsay evidence, except this there is no other legally acceptable evidence on record-when acquittal was record against A2, on the strengthen of same evidence, trial court could not have recorded conviction against A1. According to the above stated two authoritatives the accused No.1 cannot get any benefit, because with great respect towards their lordships the facts mentioned in those judgments are totally different from this facts and circumstances.

14. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon oral evidence of Pw1 to Pw5 and also relied upon the documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to

P4. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by the Pw1 which corroborates the oral evidence of Pw1 to 5, without much contradiction. The Ex.P2 is the marriage invitation card of Pw1 and accused No1. It is specifically reveals in the Ex.P2 that the date of marriage on Monday 08.03.2004 at 10:00 AM and also the venue was K.V.S. function hall, Gadwal. On perusal of Ex.P2 it is also mentioned that the name of the poster was B.A.Ross and also the name of Pw6 Ashok Kumar. The oral evidence of Pw1 to 4 and the recitals of Ex.P2, are totally corroborating without much contradictions. Coming to the Ex.P3 it is four photographs of Pw1 and accused No.1. On careful perusal of Ex.P3 it reveals that there is a marriage ceremony was taking place between bride and bridegroom. This document also further discloses the bridegroom was also putting his signatures on document. Coming to the Ex.P4 it is the marriage certificate issued by the marriage registrars

dated 08.03.2004.

15. On careful perusal of oral evidence Pw1 to 4 and Ex.P1 to P4 shows that the marriage of Pw1 and accused No.1 was performed according to

Christian rights and customs on 08.03.2004. In order to prove the date of marriage the Ex.P2 is also totally corroborates with the oral evidence of

Pw1 to 4 about the marriage between the accused No.1 and Pw1. In the cross examination of Pw1 several suggestions were given by the learned counsel of the accused, which are simply denied by the Pw1. It is specifically put suggestions by learned counsel for the accused that “it is true to say that I have filed the false complaint only to extract money from accused No.1. It is specifically deposed by the Pw1 in her Re-examination that after obtaining the certified copy, it was come to her knowledge that she admitted a suggestion put by the counsel for the accused. It is specifically stated in the Re-examination of Pw1 actually she denied the same suggestion, but it was wrong recorded to be true. In the Re-cross examination of Pw1 she stated she is not a practicing advocate as on the date of i.e.12.10.2010. In the cross examination of Pw2 to Pw4 majority of the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the accused were denied, there was nothing elicited.

16. As for as the case of the accused is concerned that he failed to elicit new facts and to discredit the oral evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 along with

Ex.P1 to P4. According to the case of the prosecution and also reasons stated about this court as no reasons to disbelieve the marriage was performed on 08.03.2004 between Pw1 and accused No.1. It is settled principle of law that for the marriage between wife and husband with reference to the 498-A of IPC is not a strict proof of pre-condition. It is also recognize by the Honorable Apex Court of India that when living relationship also will constitute as wife and husband. Even though the accused has taken a strong defense that there was no marriage taken place between accused No.1 and Pw1, but he failed to attribute discredit of the oral evidence of Pw1 to 4 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that Pw1 to Pw5 are interested and related witnesses, their evidence cannot be considered in this case.

17. In this backdrop, it is expedient to notice that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a decision reported in RAKESH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH {(2012 (2)ALT(CRL)201(SC)} while analyzing the expressions “interested witness” and related witness: has categorically held at para 12 and 13 as under:-

12. This court in Kurthik Madhar V.State of Bihar (6) (1996) I SCC 614, defined ‘interested witness’ as: A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reason.

13. Evidence of related witness can be relied upon, provided it is trustworthy. Mere relationship does not disqualify a witness,

Witnesses who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the facts as any other witness. Such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before reaching to a conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given case.

18. Therefore, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as noticed above, non-examination of any independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, more particularly, in view of the cogent, reliable, consistent and trustworthy evidence of Pws1, to 4 and also of

Ex.P1 to P4. In a recent decision reported ROHTASH KUMAR Vs.STATE

OF HARYANA {2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 806 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, minor discrepancies’ on trivial matters which do not effect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirely. It is further held in the said decision that the court has to examine whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.

19. As discussed in the foresaid paragraphs, there must be two essential and important proved facts emerge that the accused No.1 was married with Pw1 on 08.03.2004 in M.B.Church at K.V.S function hall as per the

Christian rights and customs, even though the accused denied the marriage itself with the Pw1. The Pw1 to Pw5 evidence clearly proved the marriage between Pw1 and accused. These aspects have been specifically proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution through the Pw1 to Pw5, which is consistent trust worthy and reliable, though these witnesses were cross examination on behalf of the accused, but as noticed above , nothing is elicited from their cross examination to discredit their testimony. It is specifically denied in the cross examination of Pw6 that accused No.1 is married in the year 2003 with accused No2. It is pertinent to mention that no Indian married women can claim that she was married with one particular person, unless really the marriage took place between her and another person. In the normal circumstances no Indian married women will depose against her husband unless really the relationship break out by her husband either physical harassment or mental harassment meted out by her. In the present case also the Pw1 specifically deposed about the marriage date, time and month including documentary evidence of Ex.P2 to P4. These evidence is clinchingly proves that the marriage of Pw1 and accused No.1 was performed as per the Christian community rights and customs. However it is not the case of the accused, that Pw1 was married with another person unlike he took defense that he got married with accused No.2, there is absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the version of

Pw1 to Pw4, whose evidence is treated as best evidence. It is also settled principle of law that the evidence of the victims of offence 498-A of IPC is treated as best evidence. The evidence of parents or nearest relatives of

Pw.1 was also treated as second best evidence. It is also further opinion that offences U/s. 498 A, and 4 of DP Act will be committed with in the four walls of the house and between wife and husband, their relatives only, but not among the strangers.

20. Even in his 313 Cr.P.C examination, the accused has chosen to maintain silence except stating as false in respect of the incriminating material available and put against him in the evidence of Pws1,to 5 and also Pw7 and 8 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5. The accused has a duty to furnish explanation in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding any material that has been produce against him. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in

PHULA SINGH V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH {2014 (1) ALD (Crl) 900 (SC) at paragraph No.8 as under:

The accused as duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under section 313 CrPC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313 CrPC is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. (vide:

Ramnaresh and others v.State of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2012 SC 1357,

Munish Muhar vs State of Haryana, AIE 2013 SC 912 and Raj Kumar

Singh alias Raju @ Batya v.State of Rajasthan, 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) (SC).

21. Therefore, merely denying the incriminating evidence available against him in his 313 Cr.P.C examination by the accused is not sufficient without offering any explanation by him and in such an event the court shall be entitled to draw even adverse inference against the accused.

Therefore, adverse inference cane be drawn against the accused No.1 by holding that he has harassed the Pw.1 as corroborating factor to the reliable evidence available on record. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Andhara Pradesh as postulated herein a above, the only irresistible conclusion that would emerge from the record is that the prosecution has by way of cogent and convincing, oral and documentary evidence conclusively established that the accused has subjected the Pw.1 to harassment by demanding dowry specifically on the occasions.

22. For the reasons stated above and also on careful scrutinizing the oral and documentary available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients section 498–A of IPC have been proved by the prosecution against the accused No.1 only. The allegations leveled against

A2 and A3 for second marriage and harassment have not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the second marriage between the accused No.1 and 2 is not adequate, and there is no specific allegations were proved against accused No.3, hence the accused No.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, this Court found the accused No.2 and 3 are not guilty for the offences punishable under sections, 494, and 498-A of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence U/s.494 of I.P.C, hence he is quitted U/s.

248(1)of Cr.P.C. But this court found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, and he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gadwal.

24. The accused No.1 is heard about quantum of sentence, he prayed mercy of court stating he is having small children and if he is sent to jail, there is nobody to look after welfare of his family members. This court is not inclined to apply the provisions of P.O.Act, as the offence under section 498-A of IPC is a beneficiary legislation in order to protect the women from in all respect. If any lenient view is taken against the accused, the purpose of 498-A of IPC will be defeated. Under the facts and circumstances, and also in the interest of justice the accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer two years R.I and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC. In default of the payment said fine amount the accused No.1 shall suffer S.I. for two months. The accused No.1 was sent to judicial remand on 07.03.2006 and he was enlarged on bail on 13.03.2006. The period of 6 days under gone by the accused No.1 is set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. The certified copy of this judgment is given to the accused on free of cost and he is apprised of his right of appeal against this judgment within limitation to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Court,

Mahabubnagar and also he is appraised about taking legal aid counsel in preferring the appeal also.

Typed to my dictation to the steno-typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of September, 2014.

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1: Subashini. -NIL- PW.2: Lalithamma. PW.3:Devamani. PW.4:Rani. PW.5:Rajiv Babu. PW.6: Ashok Babu.

PW.7: Hanumappa. Pw.8: Md.Shakir Hussain.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Nill Ex.P1: Compliant by Pw1. Ex.P2: Wedding card. Ex.P3: Photos with negatives. Ex.P.4: Certificate of marriage. Ex.P5 : FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Nil Nil

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

GADWAL.

C.C.NO.79 OF 2006

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, Gadwal Town

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No. 11/2006 U/Sec. 498-A, 494 R/w 109 IPC.

3. Name of the accused : 1.Trinadha S/o. Sathyanarayana age: 31 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Amparvelli, Vijayanagaram Dist.

2. Smt. Praveena W/o. Trinadha , age: 21 years, R/o. Ampavelli.

3. Smt. Narsamma W/o. Sathyanarayana age: 68 years, R/o. Aarepaly.

D A T E S

4. OFFENCE : U/s. . 498-A, 494 R/w 109 IPC

5. COMPLAINT : 07.02.2006

6. APPREHSNION OF ACCUSED : 06.03.2006

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 17.08.2010

8. CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.06.2014

9. JUDGMENT : 08.09.2014

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, this Court found the accused No.2 and 3 are not guilty for the offences punishable under sections, 494, and 498-A of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence U/s.494 of I.P.C, hence he is acquitted U/s. 248(1)of

Cr.P.C. But this court found the accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, and he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

12. REMARKS : There is no property.

13. EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 01-04-2006. Accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 04.11-2013 and prosecution evidence commenced on 17.08.2014 and closed on 07.06.2014. The prosecution did not produced the witnesses in time. On 12.08.2014 Judgment was pronounced.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Gadwal Submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

1

nIN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS AGISTRATE

AT: GADWAL.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Eshwaraiah, Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2015.

C.C.No. 256 of 2008

Between:

The State of A.P. Represented by P.S. Gadwal Town, …. Complainant.

AND 1.Telugu Madhu S/o.Jamanna, age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie,

2. Raja Narsimulu S/o.Jamanna, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril,

3. Chinna Laxmanna S/o. Savaranna, age: 54years, Occ:Agril, 4.Narsimulu S/o. Chinna Marenna, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril, 5.Jayanna S/o. Savaranna, age: 52 years, Occ: Hamali, All are R/o. Doudarpaly (v). … Accused A1 to A5.

This case coming before me on 07-01-2014 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP of Alampur JFCM’Court for the complainant and of Sri. S.

Srikanth counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Gadwal Town has filed the charge sheet in

Crime No. 37/2008 for the offence punishable U/s. 342, 448, 324 R/w 34 of IPC, against all the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 12-04-2008 at 08:30 hours the complainant G.Seetharamulu filed a report stating that on 11-04-2008 night at about 9:30 pm when he was in the house

Dourdarpally villagers Madhu, Narsimha, Jaggu and uncle of Madhu, younger brother of Jaggu, all together trespassed into his house took him on motorcycle towards Doudarpally village side to discuss something, beat him and again returned to village, tied him to a electric pole and beat him with sticks and stones, the Lws 2 and 3 have also witnessed the incident, apart from his wife Lw4. Basing on the report of Lw1, the Lw6 registered FIR. During the course of investigation the Lw6 examined and recorded the statements of Lws1 to Lw3 at police station 2 and sent the injured person to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter the Lw6 visited the scene of the offence and examined recorded the statements of eye witnesses.

On17-04-2008. A1 to A5 are arrested and remanded judicial custody. After collecting the medical certificate and also on completion of the investigation the

Lw.8 filed the charge sheet against all the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 342, 448, 324 R/w 34 of

IPC on 24-10-2008 against accused. After appearance of all the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and when they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s.342, 448, 324 R/w 34 of IPC. The charges for the offence punishable U/s. 342, 448, 324 R/w 34 of IPC are framed and explained and read over to the accused.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to 3 and Ex.P.1 to 4 were marked. On behalf of the accused Ex.D1 to D2 are marked, though not examined any person on their behalf. After completion of the prosecution evidence, all the accused are examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appears against the accused, for which all the accused denied the incriminating evidence against them and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

6. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections. 342, 448, 324 of R/w 34 IPC against the all accused.?

7. POINT: - It is the simple case of the prosecution that on 11-04-2008 at 9:30 pm when the Pw1 was in his house meanwhile the accused No.1 to 5 came to his house and took the Pw1 on a motorcycle to discuss something and thereby the Pw1 was beaten by the accused person by tying to an electric pole with sticks and stones. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of Pws1to 6 besides the documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4. The Pw1 G.

Seethramulu is the injured person and complainant. The Pw2 K.Venkat Reddy, and

Pw3 G.Vijay are the eye-witnesses to this case. The Pw4 Manjula is the wife of

Pw1 and also the eye witness to the case. The Pw5 Dr. Surya Rao is the medical 3 officer who gave treatment to the Pw1. The Pw6 Md.Ghouse Moinuddhin is the investigation officer in this case. Ex.P1 is petition lodged by the Pw1. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of Pw1. Ex.P3 certified copy of the case sheet. Ex.P4 is the FIR.

The learned prosecutor submitted arguments stating that the evidence of Pw1 to

Pw5 is constant and cogent and reliable and requested this court to record conviction against the accused.

8. In order to prove the case of prosecution for the offences U/s. 324, 448 and 342 R/w 34 of IPC the following aspects are to be proved against the accused person.

(a). The accused No.1 to 5 trespassed into the house of Pw1 on 11-04-2008 at 9:30 pm, and thereby the accused voluntarily caused injuries to the Pw1.

(b) The wrongful confinement of the Pw1 by the accused and caused injuries with chappal, sticks and stones.

9. In order to prove the trespass by the accused and voluntarily causing injuries to the Pw1 the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of Pws1to 4. Pw1 deposed that on 11-04-2008 at 9:30 pm all the accused came to his house on motorbikes stating that to talk something and the Pw1 was taken to Doudarpally village, in the middle of the road the Pw1 was beaten with sticks and stones chappals, due to which the Pw1 was sustained injuries on left eyeball and also on head besides all over the body. It is categorically deposed by the Pw1 that he was beaten by the accused by tying to an electric pole. It is also further specifically deposed by the

Pw1 that Pws 2 and 3 informed to the police about the incident and police came to the scene of offence and untied him from the electric pole and was referred to hospital for treatment. The prosecution further relied upon the oral evidence of

Pw4, who is non other than the wife of Pw1, she also deposed the same version that all the accused came to their house and the Pw1 was taken on motorbike. As per the evidence of Pw1 and 4 there is no resistance by the Pw1 while he was taking by the accused person on motorbike. On the other hand the Pw4 further deposed that she received information at 12:30 to 1:00 mid night about admitting the Pw1 in the hospital. As per the version of prosecution, the Pw4 is the eye witness causing hurt to the Pw1 with chapalls, sticks and stones by all the accused.

When Pw4 herself deposed in her chief examination that at 12:30 mid night, she received information about her husband was admitted in the hospital there is no question of eye witness to the incident by her. In the cross examination of Pw1he deposed that at the time of two incidents took place the Pw4 was in the factory. It 4 is also admitted by the Pw1 that anything occurs from a distance of 1km to their factory it is not visible. It is further admitted by the Pw1 that he has not mentioned under Ex.P1 about the injuries on his eyes and on hands head all over the body and also in 161 of Cr.P.C. statement. According to the cross examination of Pw1 his pant was tore and his clothes were stained with blood. Admittedly the prosecution did not collect any material evidence, at least the blood stained clothes of Pw1.

10. Coming to the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 they are eye-witnesses to this case.

The Pw2 deposed that he deposed that on 11-04-2008 the accused beat the Pw1 on that day of Sunday at about 9:30pm at Doudarpally when he was coming back from Doudarpaly to Gadwal, he witnessed that Pw1 was tied to a pole and beating him by the accused. At that time of his visiting to the incident Pw3 is also accompanied with him on a motorbikes. The Pw1 became unconscious when he was beaten by accused with chappals, stones and sticks. After 30 minutes of the said incident police came and Pw1 was taken to hospital by the police. Coming to the evidence of Pw3 he also deposed the same version of the Pw2. But he categorically deposed that himself and Pw2 were proceeding on a motorbike towards Doudarpally village. According to the evidence of Pw2 they are coming back from Doudarpally to Gadwal, whereas the evidence of Pw3 shows that they were proceeding towards Doudarpally. Whether these Pws2 and 3 were proceeding towards Dadourpally or towards Gadwal is a serious discrepancy over their oral evidence. It is settled law that if any discrepancy or inconsistent versions are pleaded by the prosecution, the benefit will be given to the accused. During the cross examination of Pw2 and 3 it is specifically admitted by the Pw2 that no weapons are armed with by the accused, and further the Pw2 cannot say the identical features of the alleged pole. It is also stated by the Pw2 in the cross examination that he stated to the police about the incident. It is also stated by the

Pw2 that he is neighbor to the Pw1 in the Chennakeshav nagar. In the cross examination of Pw3 he admitted that the alleged incident took place at dark night and the electric pole did not contain bulbs. The Ex.D1 and D2 are the omissions of the Pws1 and 2. It is also specifically stated by the Pw4 that the accused never come to her house prior to this case. If there is no acquaintance between Pw1 and accused what made the accused to visit the Pw1 house is not established by the prosecution. It is not case of the prosecution that due to previous enmity, the accused hatched a plan and with common intention, attacked on Pw.1.

5

11. Coming to the evidence of medical officer he deposed that he examined injured person by name G.Seetha Ramulu and found following injuries (1). A contusion of size 1 ½ X 1 ½ below left eye over maxilla simple in nature. It might have been caused with blunt object. Ex.P2 is wound certificate of Pw1. Ex.P3 is the case sheet bearing its serial No. 2525 dated 12-04-2008, containing one sheet with two written pages. As per the Ex.P3 he found following injuries. 1. Contusion below of right eyeball of size 1 ½ X 1 ½ on around right eye. He found on other visible injuries over the body of Pw1. The Pw1 stated with him that alleged injuries caused by known persons with sticks and stones at 9:30 pm. The Pw.1 did not state about the role and participation of each individual accused, and who caused which injuries by which weapon. However the injuries are on the Pw1, but the burden lies on the prosecution, how those injuries are caused or inflicted by the accused, with reasonable explanation. It is pertinent to note that the Pws.2 & 3 witnessed the incident of beating by A1 to A5 under an electric pole at 9:30 pm. As per the evidence of Pw.1 & 4, at 9:30 pm, all the accused came to their house. Admittedly the incident took place at dark night. According to the case of prosecution there was no seizure of alleged sticks, chappals and stones which are alleged to have been used by the accused in the commission of offence. On the other hand the investigation officer did not visit the scene of offence and not conducted any scene of offence panchanama. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that the evidence of Pws1 and Pw5 not corroborating and creating doubts in the minds of the court. Coming to the evidence of Pw6 he is investigation officer deposed that on 11-04-2008 at about 9:30 pm he received a complaint from Pw1. As per the evidence of investigation officer there is no whisper about the visiting of scene of offence and no observation made by him and also the learned counsel for accused has rightly pointed out that the investigation officer did not conduct scene of offence panchanama and also not seized the alleged stones, chapalls and sticks from the place where the Pw1 alleged to have been tied to an electric pole in the village of Daudarapally.

In SURAPATHI LAXMANA RAO Vs. STATE OF AP {2003 (2) ALD (CRL.)355}, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. has held at para-5, as under:

“In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish of the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminally is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory 6 exceptions:”In this case, the prosecution has not pleaded any statutory exception in its favour to presume the guilt of the accused. It therefore, becomes necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused to ascertain whether it has sustained the charges leveled against him in this regard or not.

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused about the motive of the offence and also the scene of offence besides seizure of material evidence. It is further contended by him that according to Ex.P1 there is no mentioned of criminal trespass into the house of Pw1, further more the Ex.P1 does not disclose the forcible or abducting and wrongful confinement of the Pw1. It is further contended by him that the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 are neighbors of Pw1 and their evidence is having serious discrepancy about their presence. Even otherwise assumed the evidence of Pw2 and 3 are to be true as chance witnesses, their presence in the scene of offence is unbelievable as per their evidence of chief examinations, whether they are proceeding towards Dadourpaly or Gadwal is not clear and what purpose they are going by the way. Hence their evidence cannot be taken into consideration and not believable in the eye of law, after careful perusal of their cross examination.

13. In order to further fortify the contention of the learned counsel for the accused he relied upon the following authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble

Supreme Court and High Courts. (1). Kuldip Yadav & Ors. V. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court, 1736, wherein they lordships held that both cases related to same incident – FIR’s in both cases investigated by same

Investigation officer-Investigating Officer ought to have brought to notice of trial court about two FIR’s arising out of same incident to avoid gross injustice to parties concerned. According to this case this is not a case and counter case. Hence with great respect towards their lordships the above stated authority is not applicable to the case on hand. However the prosecution has taken a step to conduct prosecution by the Assistant Public Prosecutor of Alampur J.F.C.M.Court in order to avoid injustice to the parties. However the learned counsel for the accused further relied upon in the same authoritative about the scene of offence in that case.Wherein their lordships held that prosecution is not sure specifically

about the actual place of occurrence. Details furnished by the prosecution

witnessed and medical evidence vary on material aspects on description of

7

injuries alleged to have been sustained. Failure of prosecution to examine

witness present at the scene of occurrence and also accused. Weapons alleged

to be used in offence were not seized and no efforts was made to recover them.

Blood stains clothes, blood stained earth of place of occurrence were not sent

to forensic laboratory for chemical examination- conviction set aside. (2).

Mathuru Yadav @ Mathura Mahato & others Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR (SC) (2002), 2707 their lordships held that two independent persons also were

present-Their statement recorded by police but not produced in Court-

Discrepancy as to weapon used, time of occurrence and time of starting of

investigation-High Court ignoring these discrepancies treating them as minor

and irrelevant-Whether correct? Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted. It is further held that it is relevant to notice the fact that the seizure of the blood stained mud and grass is not established beyond reasonable doubt and there has been no recovery of any weapon from the accused. Even the motive suggested is very weak and stale. In the above doubtful circumstances, we considered it unsafe to place reliance on the evidence produced by the prosecution to hold the appellants guilty for the offence charged against them. (3) 2003 SAR(Criminal) 118 Supreme

Court, between Zafar Vs. State of U.P, their lordships held that contradiction between version of eye witnesses who alleged accompanied deceased at the time of occurrence and that of I.O. with regard to actual scene of occurrence –site plan of scene of offence prepared at point of out of the eye-witnesses showing such place also differing from that stated by the witnesses-Prosecution cases rendered doubtful. The investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses and got the blood stained kurtha from the body of the witnesses who have gone with the witnesses. (4). 2004(4) SRJ, 160, between Ram Swarup and others Vs. State of

Rajasthan, their lordships held that contradictory witnesses –unreliable testimony

of witnesses – difference between FIR and the statement of informant–evidence

not consistent with medical evidence on record- acquittal affirmed. (5) 2004 (Cri.L.J.2001) by Madhya Pradesh High Court between GABBU B. LODHI &

OTHERS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, wherein they lordships held that station house officer, though signed FIR, unable to disclose the name of his sub- ordinate who wrote FIR–No note in FIR, that it was scribed by subordinate as per dictation and direction of station house officer–information deposing that station house officer was not present when FIR was lodged–No proof of sending copy of

Magistrate–Held FIR was not a genuine document and it was anti dated–FIR liable

to be discarded. In the present case also FIR is registered on 12-04-2008, though 8 police received first information of incident on 11-04-2008 nigh itself, and there no satisfactory explanation offered by the Pw.6.

14. On careful perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this court found there are certain admissions are made by the Pws 2 to 4. It is specifically admitted by the Pw2 that there are no weapons used by the accused and also the

Ex.D1 is some portion of 161 statement of Pw2 which reads the name of the accused and with their father’s name. It is stated in the cross examination of Pw2 that he cannot say the names of father’s of the accused, so also in the evidence of

Pw3 the same question was put to him and he cannot also depose the father’s names of the accused. This aspect will play a crucial role with regard to the identification of the accused persons. It is well settled that a statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C cannot be treated as a evidence in the criminal trial but may be used for limited purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. It is further settled law that if two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the view which favours the accused must be preferred. It is also found that the medical evidence did not corroborate the versions of Pws1, since all the injuries found and caused by blunt object and were anti mortem in nature. It is also further admitted by the Pw1 that next day of the incident he gave

Ex.P1 after taking treatment from the Pw5. As per the case of the prosecution if all the accused attacked on the Pw1 there should have been many more injuries on the

Pw1 and also on the different parts of the body. According to the evidence of Pw5 he referred the Pw1 for further treatment to Kurnool, there is no evidence is produced by the prosecution in furtherance of the treatment given by the Kurnool

Doctors. If all the accused with common intention attacked on the Pw1 more number of injuries are possible. Contrary to the evidence of Pw1 the evidence of

Pw2 to 4 appears, which creates several doubts in the minds of this court with regard to the occurrence of the incident itself. On the other hand the investigation agency did not visit the scene of offence. In this case no scene of offence and no seizure of sticks and stones. It is one of the essential principles of investigation agency to visit the scene of offence as soon as the police received any information with regard to the commission of any offence. As per the oral evidence of Pw1 and

Ex.P1 there is no attribution towards motive of the offence. The Pw4 stated that she has not seen the accused persons earlier, for the first time she witnessed the accused in the court hall itself. As per the Ex.P2 there are corrections and one injury of contusion below eyeball which is simple in nature. As per the version of 9

Pw1 is considered to be true there never be such injuries possible under Ex.P2.

Further more the prosecution evidence do not reveal the role of the each accused in this case and with common intention. There is no specific over facts against A1 to

A5 individually. If any injury is caused by all the accused there would have been several injuries which may lead to death of the injured person. According to these points are answered against the prosecution, and therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15. For the reasons stated above and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and also pronouncements of authoritative of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court this court of the considered opinion that

the prosecution has failed established its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s.342,448,324 R/w 34 of IPC. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, this Court found all the accused not guilty for the offence under

Section,342,448, 324 R/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the steno-typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of January, 2015.

Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1: Seetharamulu. -NIL- Pw.2: Venkat Reddy. Pw.3: G.Vijay. Pw.4 :Smt.G.Manjula. Pw.5 : N.Surya Rao. (Doctor) Pw.6 : Md.Ghouse Moinuddhin.(I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Complaint by Pw1. Ex. P2: Wound certificate by Pw1. Ex.D1 some portion of 161 statement of Pw2. Ex.D2 some portion of 161 statement of Pw3.

10

Ex.P3: Case sheet by Pw5. Ex.P4 : FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

-Nil- -Nil-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

11

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

GADWAL.

C.C.NO. 256 OF 2008

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, Gadwal Town P.S.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No. 37/2008 U/Sec. 448, 342, 324 R/w 34 of IPC

3. Name of the accused :

1.Telugu Madhu S/o.Jamanna, age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie,

2. Raja Narsimulu S/o.Jamanna, age: 30 years, Occ: Agril,

3. Chinna Laxmanna S/o. Savaranna, age: 54years, Occ:Agril, 4.Narsimulu S/o. Chinna Marenna, age: 55 years, Occ: Agril, 5.Jayanna S/o. Savaranna, age: 52 years, Occ: Hamali, All are R/o. Doudarpaly (v).

D A T E S

4. OFFENCE :U/s. 448, 342, 324 R/w 34 of IPC

5. COMPLAINT : 12.04.2008

6. APPREHSNION OF ACCUSED : 17.04.2008

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 07.01.2014.

8. CLOSE OF TRIAL : 07.12.2015

9. JUDGMENT : 12.01.2015

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER In the result, this Court found all the accused not guilty for the offence under Section, 342, 448, 324 R/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over.

12. REMARKS : There is no property.

13. EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 18-06-2010. Accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 28.02-2012 and prosecution evidence commenced on 07.01.2014 and closed on 07.12.2015. The prosecution did not produced the witnesses in time. On 12.01.2015 Judgment was pronounced.

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Gadwal Submitted to:

The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT:GADWAL.

PRESENT: Sri.V.Eshwaraiah, B,Com,LL,M.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

Dated this the 9th day of March, 2015.

C.C.No. 170 of 2014.

Between:

The State of A.P. Rep. by P.S. Gadwal Rural. ….Complainant.

AND

1. Chinna @ Boya Narsimulu S/o. Savaranna, age:31yrs, 2.Pedda Venkatanna S/o. Gudise Peddanna, age: 41yrs, 3.Ravi S/o.Hanumanthu, age: 31yrs, 4.Laxmanna S/o. Karre Govindhu, age: 29yrs, 5.Gorla Narsimulu S/o. Savaranna, age:26yrs, 6.Boya Gundanna S/o. Chinnaiah, age: 49 years, All are Occ: Agril R/o.Jeelledubanda village of Gadwal mandal. .Accused A1 to A6.

This case came before me on 04-03-2015 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and of Sri. T.Manohar Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Gadwal Rural has filed the charge sheet in

Crime No. 08/2014 for the offence punishable U/s.323,324,504 R/w 34 of IPC against all the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 03-02-2014 at 18:00hrs the complainant Sri.Telugu Chandranna filed a report stating that on 01-02-2014 at about 21:00hrs the complaint brother namely Telugu Eadanna went to hotel for drink tea in his village. Where one person namely Chinna was shouting in drunken condition. Meantime his brother

Eadanna asked him that why are you shouting. Upon which he replied that who are you for asking me and beaten his brother with a chapel on his back. Regarding this matter his brother came to home and said to him. Then the complainant went to hotel and asked him that “why have you beaten my brother, in meantime where his villagers namely 1. Pedda Venkatanna 2. Ravi 3. Laxmanna 4. Golla Narsimulu 5.

2

Boya Gundanna (A1 to A6) were present in drunken condition and abused him in filthy language that Eandira lanjakoduka and beaten him with hands and kicked with legs. Meantime Pedda Venkatanna took a rod and beaten him on his left side head, as result he received severe bleeding injuries, then Pedda Venkatanna beaten to the complainant brother namely Nagaraju on his head as result his brother

Nagaraju received bleeding injury on head. Then Ravi and Laxmanna were fallen down him and kicked with hands and legs. While one Golla Narsimulu was kicking with legs to the complainant brother and Boya Gundanna has fallen down to his brother and was beating with hands to him, meantime one Chinna

Hanumanthu and Narsimulu were came and rescued from them. Basing on the report of Lw1, the Lw9 registered a case in Cr,No. 08/2014 U/s. 324, 323, 504 R/w 34 of IPC, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 and 2 and visited scene of offence which is situated at hotel in Jelledubanda village, Lw9 secured the presence of two mediators Lw6 & 7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama drawn rough sketch of the scene. Lw9 seized one iron rod at scene of offence, its length about 20 inches under cover of panmchanama. On 12-02-2014 the accused

A1 to A6 were apprehended and served notice U/s. 41-A of Cr.P.C notice. After completion of investigation Lw9 filed the charge sheet against all the accused,

3. This Court took cognizance for the offences under Section 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC against all the accused on 20.03.2010. After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C, when they are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 323,324, 504

R/w 34 of IPC were framed and read over and explained to all the accused.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.5 and Ex.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined. As the material witness turned hostile the learned

APPO has given up the Lws 6 to 9, accordingly this court closed the evidence. As there is no incriminating evidence available against all the accused person, hence the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

5. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

6. Now the point for determination is:- 3

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/s. 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC against all the accused.

7. POINT: It is the simple case of the prosecution that on 01-02-2014 at night hours the brother of Pw1 T.Eadanna went to hotel in order have tea, meanwhile the accused persons picked up quarreled with him and the Pw1 also intervened in the dispute later. A1 to A6 with common intention caused bleeding injuries to Pw1 and 3 with iron rods. In order to its case the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of Pws 1 to 5. The PW.1: T.Chandranna is the complainant and injured person. PW.2: T.Eadanna is eye witness to the case. PW.3 T.Nagaraju is the brother of Pw1 and also eye witness and injured person. The PW.4 Chinna

Hanumanthu and PW.5 T.Savaranna are the eye witnesses to the incident.

According to Pws 1 to 5 they never deposed that on 01-02-2014 at night hours the brother of Pw1 T.Eadanna went to hotel in order have tea, meanwhile the accused persons picked up quarreled with him and the Pw1 also intervened in the dispute later. A1 to A6 with common intention caused bleeding injuries to Pw1 and 3 with iron rods. As the material witnesses were turned hostel, hence the Lws. 6 to 9 are given by the learned APPO. Accordingly this court closed the evidence of prosecution. This court found that there is no incriminating evidence available against all the accused; hence the accused are entitled for acquittal. According to section 3 of Indian evidence Act any statement given by the witness before the court is only the evidence, which is helpful to the prosecution. On careful perusal of the evidence of Pw1 to Pw.5, it is not helpful to the prosecution, to come to conclusion that the accused are involved in the above stated offence. The ingredients of sec 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC were not proved by the prosecution.

In view of the above reasons the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In SURAPATHI LAXMANA RAO Vs. STATE OF AP {2003 (2) ALD (CRL.)355}, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. has held at para-5, as under:

“In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish of the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminally is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions:”

8. According to section 3 of Indian evidence Act, any statement given by the witnesses before a court is only the legal evidence. In the present case the Pw1 to 4 5 not stated anything against the accused persons. It is not useful to the prosecution either the oral evidence of Pw1 to 5 or the documentary evidence as Ex.P1 to P6.

Therefore, in the absence of any material adduced by the prosecution connecting to the accused to the offence alleged against them, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to its case for the offence punishable U/s. 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC hence the accused are entitled for acquittal, the point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, this Court found all the accused are not guilty for the offence under Sections, 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e iron rods in CPR.No. 58 of 2014 shall be destroyed forthwith after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to the steno typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of March, 2015.

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1: T.Chandranna. -NIL- PW.2: T.Eadanna. PW.3: T.Nagaraju. PW.4: Chinna Hanumanthu. PW.5: T.Savaranna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Signature on complaint by Pw1. Ex.P2: 161 statement by Pw1. -Nil- Ex.P3: 161 statement by Pw2. Ex.P4: 161 statement by Pw3. Ex.P5 :161 statement of Pw4. Ex.P6:161 statement by Pw5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

5

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT GADWAL.

C.C.NO. 170 OF 2014

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police P.S. Gadwal Rural.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence: Cr.No. 08/2014 U/Sec. 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC.

3. Name of the accused 1.Chinna @ Boya Narsimulu S/o. Savaranna, age:31yrs, 2.Pedda Venkatanna S/o. Gudise Peddanna, age: 41yrs, 3.Ravi S/o.Hanumanthu, age: 31yrs, 4.Laxmanna S/o. Karre Govindhu, age: 29yrs, 5.Gorla Narsimulu S/o. Savaranna, age:26yrs, 6.Boya Gundanna S/o. Chinnaiah, age: 49 years, All are Occ: Agril R/o.Jeelledubanda village of Gadwal mandal.

D A T E S

4. OFFENCE : U/s. 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC.

5. COMPLAINT : 03.02.2014

6. APPREHSNION OF ACCUSED : 12.02.2014

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 04.03.2015

8. CLOSE OF TRIAL : 09.01.2015

9. JUDGMENT : 04.03.2015

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : Not guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER In the result, this Court found all the accused are not guilty for the offence under Sections, 323,324, 504 R/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e iron rods in CPR.No. 58 of 2014 shall be destroyed forthwith after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

12. REMARKS : There is unmarked property of iron rod is ordered for destruction after appeal time is over.

13. EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY : The case was taken on file 20-06-2014. Accused are examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 12-02-2015 and prosecution evidence commenced on 04.03.2015 and closed on 09.01.2015. The prosecution did not produce the witnesses in time. On 09.03.2015 Judgment was pronounced.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Gadwal

Submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

6

TSJG020000012002

Presented on : 06-04-2002 Registered on : 28-08-2005 Decided on : 06-02-2015 Duration : 12 years, 10 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal

AT GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Junior Civil Judge)

CC/91/2005

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

PROH EXICISE

Through Police Station Officer

, GADWAL T

GADWAL MAHABOOBNAGAR

PROH EXICISE

VERSUS :

MALLA SAHEB

Age: 0 Occupation :

AIZE VG ML

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: ASST.PP, Advocate for appearing for MALLA SAHEB Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : of , of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 06-02-2015) The prosecution filed D.C. of accused Hence the case is abatted cvase aginst A2 was abatted hence the case is totally abatted

Date : 06-02-2015 Junior Civil Judges

GADWAL MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Junior Civil Judges

GADWAL MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS