1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, MADANAPALLE
PRESENT:- SRI SYED ZIYAUDDIN
II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Madanapalle
Wednesday, this the Eighteenth (18th ) day of March, 2020
C.C.NO. 551 OF 2018
BETWEEN:-
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nimmanapalle Police
Station. (Cr.No.34/2018) …COMPLAINANT.
Vs.
Jangam Shiva Shankar Reddy @ Shiva Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Late Chinnapa
Reddy, Caste by Kapu, Cultivation, R/at. Jangamvaripalle Village, H/o.
Vengamvaripalle, Nimmanapalle Mandal.
… ACCUSED.
This case coming before me on 13-03-2020 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for complainant, and of Sri. S.Vijaya Kumar, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nimmanapalle Police Station has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.34/2018 U/Sec.353, 323 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter it is referred as I.P.C.).
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27-08-2018 at about 3.45 P.M.
at MRC building, Agraharam Road, Nimmanapalle Village and Mandal, L.W.1 –
T.Raja Gopal being the Mandal Education Officer (MEO) of Nimmanapalle Mandal conducting ISHA Training Program to the Mandal Teachers and in the meanwhile, the accused came and produced the Xerox copy of caste certificate and asked him to attest on it as the accused did not produce the original caste certificate, the complainant refused the attest of it. On that the accused became anger and shouted on him and abused him in filthy language, beat him with hands and pushed him down from his chair and threatened him with dire consequences. The 2 accused obstructed the complainant for his legitimate duties with criminal force and he also threatened him to take away his life. In the mean while, L.Ws 2 to 9 namely,N.Ramachandraiah,L.Subbaiah,K.Narasimhulu,G.Sudhakar,
N.Padmanabham, A.Venkatramana, B.Mallikarjuna and D.Prasad respectively and some others rescued L.W.1 – T.Raja Gopal from the hands of the accused and sent the accused from that place. L.W.1 – T.Raja Gopal lodged a report before L.W.10 -
C. Hari Hara Prasad, S.I. of Police, Nimmanapalle P.S., who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.34/2018 U/Sec.353, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and investigated into.
During the course of investigation, L.W.10 – C. Hari Hara Prasad examined the
L.Ws.1 to 9 namely, T.Raja Gopal, N.Ramachandraiah, L.Subbaiah, K.Narasimhulu,
G.Sudhakar, N.Padmanabham, A.Venkatramana, B.Mallikarjuna and D.Prasad respectively and recorded their statements. On 03-10-2018, L.W.10 – C.Hari Hara
Prasad served Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C. notice on the accused with an instruction to appear before the court to answer the charge. Hence, the charge.
3.In this case, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable
U/Sec.353, 323 and 506 I.P.C against the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter it is referred as Cr.P.C) and he was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the substance of allegations leveled against him by explaining the contents of charge sheet in
Telugu to the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 323 and 506 I.P.C., for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7.
6.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining the same in Telugu to the accused, for which, he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.
7.Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the material on record.
3
8.Now the point for determination is :
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 506
and 323 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt “?
9.POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution has examined L.W.1 –
T.Raja Gopal as P.W.1. He deposed that on 27-08-2018, while he was conducting
ISHA Training Programme to the Teachers in his Mandal, in the meanwhile, the accused came and introduced himself with him and asked him to attest on the xerox copy of caste certificate. Then, he asked the accused to bring original caste certificate for the attestation. On that, he replied that he is not having original caste certificate with him and for that he refused to attest on the said certificate without seeing the original. On that the accused behaved highhandedly by raising cries and obstructed his legitimate duties and he also slapped on his cheek and pushed him from his chair and threatened him with dire consequence and in the meanwhile, L.Ws 2 to 6 namely, N.Ramachandraiah, L.Subbaiah,
K.Narasimhulu, G.Sudhakar and N.Padmanabham respectively intervened and rescued him from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged a report before the police. He identified his signature in Ex.P-1 report. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he stated that he conducted the training programme as per the instructions of his superior officers. The timings of the training programme is 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM. One Subbaiah was on duty attender on the date of alleged incident. One Ramachandra, Teacher, one Sudhakar, CRP were present at the time of happening of the alleged incident. The alleged training programme was conducted at C.R.C Building, Mandal Resource Centre, Nimmanapalle. He admitted that the said training will be given to the teachers only. He admitted that they will not allow the public into the training centre. He has seen the Xerox copy of the caste certificate alleged to be asked by the accused to attest the same. He did not verify the said caste certificate with regard to name, father’s name, caste, issuing authority and the date of its issuance etc. He did not take any action against said Subbaiah as he alleged to be allowed the accused in the 4 training centre. He did not made any endorsement on the alleged caste certificate and returned the same stating that he will attest on the said certificate on perusing the original of it. The alleged ISHA training programme was concluded on that day at about 5.00 PM., The distance between the police station and the training centre is less than half km. After five minutes of the happening of the alleged incident, he went to the police station. He did not made any endorsement in the records of his office that the alleged obstruction was held and due to that he went to the police station to lodge a report before the police. He admitted that there is no any documentary proof in the records of the office that the accused came and obstructed to his legitimate duties. He himself prepared
Ex.P.1 report with his own handwriting. He did not specifically mentioned in Ex.P.1 report that the alleged training programme was going on in a hall at Mandal
Resource Centre. He does not know who inserted the timing i.e. ’after noon 3.45
PM’ in Ex.P.1 report. He admitted that he did not produce any documentary proof to show that the accused came when the alleged ISHA training programme was going on in Mandal Resource Centre and he obstructed to his legitimate duties.
He does not know whether the accused is acting as Secretary to the Association of Children Rights. The Government granting Travelling Allowance to the pupils belongs to weaker sections, who are attending to the school. He denied the suggestion that an enquiry was conducted by the District Educational Officer by name B.Prathap Reddy with regard to drop outs in the school. He denied the suggestion that as the accused asked about the statistics of drop outs candidate and for that he bore grudge and lodged a false report against the accused. He denied the suggestion that he is misappropriating the funds of the Government and for that to save his skin, he lodged a false report against the accused. He denied the suggestion that the attestation will arise only to the testimonials but not the caste certificate and he is deposing false. They did not consider the caste of the pupil if he produce the Xerox copy of the caste certificate. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false as the accused obstructed to his legitimate duties and he slapped on him and he did not behave highhandedly. He denied the 5 suggestion that he lodged a false report against the accused by planting the witnesses who are his subordinates.
10.The prosecution has examined L.W.2 – N.Ramachandraiah as P.W.2.
He deposed that on 27-08-2018, while he was present in ISHA Training at the office of MEO situated in MRC building, in the mean while, the accused came with a xerox copy of caste certificate and asked PW1 to attest on it. On that PW1 asked him to bring original caste certificate and he refused to attest the same without seeing original caste certificate. Then, the accused behaved highhandedly and threatened PW1 and he slapped on the cheek of PW1. He also pushed the chair of PW1. Thereafter he, LWs 3 to 6 namely L.Subbaiah,
K.Narasimhulu, G.Sudhakar and N.Padmanabham respectively intervened and rescued PW1 from the hands of the accused. PW1 lodged a report before the police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he stated that the accused brought the Xerox copy of caste certificate and asked PW1 to attest on it. He did not see the father’s name of the holder of the said certificate and the caste mentioned in the said certificate. He cannot say whether the certificate alleged to be brought by the accused is a caste certificate or not. One Subbaiah was attender on duty on the date of happening of the alleged incident. The accused himself went towards PW1 and asked to attest on the alleged certificate. PW1 did not ask the said attender by name Subbaiah why he allowed the accused as the training was going on. PW1 did not take any action against the said Subbaiah as he allowed the accused when the training was going on. He denied the suggestion that as the accused did not came and the alleged incident was never happened as alleged by him and for that PW1 did not take any action against the said Subbaiah. He does not know whether PW1 informed about the alleged incident to his superior authorities or not. He is working as Teacher in MPPS, Vengamvaripalle, Nimmanapalle Mandal for the last 4 years. The distance between Vengamvaripalle and Balinayunipalle is nearly 2 km. There are no students in the school providing transport facility to them. He does not know whether the accused lodged a report against PW1 before 6 his superior authorities as he is not providing transport facility though the
Government provided the same. He denied the suggestion that he is aware of the fact that PW1 is not providing transport facility to the students who are coming at a distant place and the accused lodged report against PW1 before the superior officers and he is deposing false. He admitted that except the trainee officials, nobody will be allowed into the alleged training centre. He admitted that L.Ws 3 to 6 namely, L.Subbaiah, K.Narasimhulu, G.Sudhakar and N.Padmanabham respectively are his colleagues. He denied the suggestion that the alleged incident was never happened and as the accused lodged a report against PW1 for that he bore grudge against the accused and lodged a false report against him.
He admitted that PW1 is his superior officer. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to oblize PW1 as he is his superior officer.
11.The prosecution has examined L.W.3 – L.Subbaiah as P.W.3. He deposed that on 27-08-2018, accused came to MEO office for obtaining the attestation in the caste certificate. He asked PW1 to attest on the xerox copy of the cast certificate, then PW1 asked him that if the original certificate shown to him, then he will attest the same. As PW1 bluntly refused to attest the copy of the caste certificate without seeing the original, some altercation took place between
PW1 and the accused. PW1 lodged a report before the police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. At the time of happening of the said incident, an
ISHA Training Programme was going on and 24 Teachers were attended to the said Training Programme. PW2, L.Ws.4 to 8 namely, K.Narasimhulu, G.Sudhakar
N.Padmanabham, A.Venkatramana and B.Mallikarjuna respectively were present at the time of happening of the incident. During the cross examination, he stated that at present, he is not having any record to show that he is working as
Messenger in MEO Office, Nimmanapalle. The alleged ISHA Training was commenced at about 3.45 PM. PW1 conducted the said training and the resource persons were also present, but he cannot say their names. PW1 and 2 resource persons were present when the alleged ISHA training was going on. He cannot say the names of the said resource persons. He does not remember the names of 7 the teachers who attended to the said ISHA training programme. There are four rooms in the said MEO office. His duty is on that day is at computer room. The alleged training was going on in a hall. He admitted that he will attend before the officers whenever they called by ranging a bell. The accused brought a caste certificate for its attestation. He does not know the number of certificates brought by the accused. He did not see the alleged caste certificate and he cannot say about the details of the said certificate. As the altercation was held between PW1 and the accused and as the members who were present there were saying that the same was happened as the accused brought the caste certificate and asked
PW1 to attest on him and due to that he came to know the said fact. Police examined him on the next day of the happening of the alleged incident along with the other staff members. He does not know whether PW1 informed about the alleged incident to his superior officers or not. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came and asked to attest on the caste certificate and he lodged a complaint against PW1 as he is not paying travelling allowance to the students and for that he bore grudge and lodged a false report against him. He did not affix the seal of the MEO on the attested signature on a caste certificate. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came and asked PW1 to attest on the caste certificate and the alleged incident was never happened.
12.The prosecution has examined L.W.5 – G.Sudhakar as P.W.4. He deposed that on 27-08-2018 when the ISHA Training Programme was going on in
MRC Building, Nimmanapalle and they were present and the Teachers were attended to the said meeting. In the meanwhile, the accused came with some xerox copies of certificates and asked PW1 to attest on them. PW1 refused to attest the same without seeing the originals. Thereafter, some altercation was held between PW1 and the accused. PW1 lodged a report before the police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he stated that the ISHA training was commenced at 3.45 PM. There are nearly 44 teachers attended to the said meeting but he cannot say their names. There is no enmity between PW1 and the accused. His duty on that day is to participate in 8 the said meeting and to make successful of the said meeting. He is having written orders to attend the said meeting. He did not produce the said written orders
before the police. Police did not examine him. He does not know what the
documents brought by the accused on the alleged date of incident. His superior officers did not enquire with regard to happening of the alleged incident. One
Padmanabham, Narasimhulu, Swathi, Manjula, Sowjanya were present at the time when the alleged incident was happened. One Manjula, Swathi and
Padmanabham and Narasimhulu were present at the place at which the alleged incident was happened. The accused came and asked for attestation and PW1 refused to attest on the said certificates except that nothing was happened. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came to his office and he did not ask to attest on the certificates and the accused lodged a complaint before the superior authority with regard to non payment of Travelling Allowances to the students and for that PW1 bore grudge and lodged a false report against the accused.
13.The Prosecution has examined L.W.4 – K.Narasimhulu as P.W.5. He deposed that on 27-08-2018 at about 3.45 P.M., when ISHA Training Programme was going on at that time the accused came there and he said to be asked PW1 to attest in one document. He came to know that as there is no original document of that document, for that PW1 did not attest the said document. As some altercation was held and on hearing the cries, he rushed there, he found the
Teachers who were attended to the said programme and four to five non teaching staff members, PW1 and the accused were present. Thereafter, PW1 went to the police station to lodge a report. Police examined him and rerecorded his statement. During the cross examination, he stated that the alleged ISHA training was commenced at about 9.00 AM on that day. He does not remember the purpose of the alleged training which was held on that day. He admitted that the office room is a separate room from the training room. One G.Sreenivasulu,
MPUPS, Agraharam of S.G.T and some other teachers attended the training programme. He admitted that the said training programme was given only for the 9 teachers and no person will be allowed into the said training programme. He admitted that one has to go into the said training hall after obtaining the permission of the resource persons through attender. The said training programme was concluded on that day at about 4.30 PM. He did not see the documents alleged to be brought by the accused.One Subbaiah attended the duties of attender on that day. He came to know about the alleged incident through one teacher in the said training programme. He did not witness the alleged incident personally. Police examined him on the same day at about 4.30
PM. PW1 did not made any entry with regard to happening of the alleged incident in the records of his office in his presence. He did not go to the police station. He does not know when and what time PW1 lodged a report before the police.
14.The Prosecution has examined L.W.6 – N.Padmanabham as P.W.6. He deposed that on 27-08-2018 between 3.30 and 4.00 P.M., the accused came to
M.E.O. Office for obtaining attestation in the caste certificate. He asked P.W.1 to attest on the caste certificate, but P.W.1 refused to attest the same unless seeing the original certificate. Thereafter, the accused left there. He does not know what happened subsequently. P.W.1 lodged a report before the police. Police did not examine him. As P.W.6 turned hostile, the learned APP cross examined him and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.p-2. He was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
15.The prosecution has examined L.W.7 – A.Venkatramana as P.W.7. He deposed that on 27-08-2018, he served tea to P.W.1 and other 10 members. He did not see the accused at that place. Police did not examine him. As P.W.7 turned hostile, the learned APP cross examined him and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P-3. He was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
16.The prosecution has examined L.W.8 – B.Mallikarjuna as P.W.8. He deposed that he does not know any thing about this case. Police did not examine him. As P.W.8 turned hostile, the learned APP cross examined him and got marked his 161 Cr.P.C staement as Ex.P-4. He was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
10
17.The prosecution has examined L.W.9 – D.Prasad as P.W.9. He deposed that he does not know any thing about this case. Police did not examine him. As
P.W.9 turned hostile, the learned APP cross examined him and got marked his 161
Cr.P.C staement as Ex.P-5. He was not cross examined by the defence counsel.
18.The prosecution has examined L.W.10 – C.Hari Hara Prasad as P.W.10.
He deposed that on 27-08-2018 at about 4.30 PM, he was present in the police station, PW1 along with PW2 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report.
Basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.34/2018 U/Secs. 353, 323 and 506
IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned. He examined PWs 1 and 2 at the police station itself and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence along with Pws 1 and 2 which is the Mandal Resource Centre Building,
Agraharam Road, Nimmanapalle. PWs 1 and 2 shown the scene of offence and he examined the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also secured the presence of PWs 3 to 6 examined them and recorded their statements. He also examined 41 Teachers and 5 members of non teaching staff, but he did not record their statements as they stated in the same versions of PWs 1 to 6. He also secured the presence of PWs 7 to 9 and examined them and recorded their statements. PWs 6 to 9 stated before him as in Exs.P.2 to P.5.
Thereafter, he left the scene of offence and visited the house of the accused at
Jangamvaripalle Village, but he was not present in his house. On 03-10-2018, the accused appeared before him while he was present in the police station and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice on him and he enlarged him on bail after obtaining sufficient solvencies. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is the FIR. Ex.P.7 is the rough sketch. During the cross examination, he stated that he visited the alleged scene of offence at about 5.00 or 5.10 PM.
He did not verify the records of the said office with regard to the timings of the said training programme. He cannot say when the said training programme was concluded on that day. The said training was given for the teachers only. Prior to joining into the service of police, he worked as private teacher, contract lecturer, computer operator and data entry operator in ICICI bank. He does not know the 11 topic on which the said training programme was given on that day. The tea serving people and the Anganwadi workers came to the said place. He cannot say specifically who acted as Attender on that day. He did not investigate on the aspect from whom the accused alleged to be obtained permission to enter into the alleged scene of offence. PW1 did not produce the alleged document on which the accused alleged to be asked to attest PW1. He denied the suggestion that he examined only the sub-ordinates of PW1. He did not examine the superior officer of PW1. He does not know whether an altercation was held between PW1 and the accused with regard to payment of travelling allowance to the pupil who attending the school. He denied the suggestion that the alleged offence did not took place and PW1 lodged a false report against the accused as he reported to the superior officers of PW1 as there are heavy drop outs in the schools of the jurisdiction of PW1. He denied the suggestion that he did not examine PW5 and
PW6 and recorded their statements. He denied the suggestion that the accused never committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the alleged scene of offence at about 5.00 or 5.10 PM and he did not examine any witnesses and he is deposing false.
19.The learned APP argued that though P.Ws.6 to 9 turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 and 10 is consistent and corroborating with each other and the prosecution has proved its case.
20.On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the independent witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution and there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
21.The contention of the prosecution is that on 27-08-2018 at about 3.45
P.M. when P.W.1 conducting ISHA Training Programme to the Teachers, the accused came and asked him to attest on the xerox copy of the caste certificate, but he refused to attest the same as the accused did not produce the original copy of caste certificate. On that the accused became anger and shouted on him and abused him in filthy language, beat him and pushed down from his chair and 12 obstructed to his legitimate duties and he also threatened to do away his life. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 10. P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant/victim. P.W.2 is the Teacher. P.W.3 is Attender. P.W.4 and P.W.6 are the Cluster Resource Persons. P.W.5 is the M.I.S Co-Ordinator, P.W.7 is the Tea
Master. P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the independent witnesses. P.W.10 is the
Investigating Officer. In this case, P.W.6 to 9 turned hostile and they did not support the version of the prosecution. A perusal of material on record, P.W.1 is
Mandal Educational Officer, Nimmanapalle paid by the Government, definitely comes under the category of Public Servant. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 in their chief examination stated that on 27-08-2018, when the ISHA Training was going on, the accused came and asked P.W.1 to attest on the xerox copy of the caste certificate. P.W.4 in his chief examination stated that on 27-08-2018 when ISHA
Training Programme was going on, the accused came and asked P.W.1 to attest on the xerox copy of certificates. P.W.5 in his chief examination stated that on 27- 08-2018, when the ISHA Training was going on, the accused came there and he said to be asked P.W.1 to attest in one document. P.Ws.1 to 4 in their chief examination further stated that P.W.1 refused to attest on the said document without seeing the original as the accused did not bring original of it. P.W.5 in his chief examination further stated that he came to know that as there is no original certificate with the accused, for that P.W.1 did not attest on the said document.
He further stated that as some altercation was held and on hearing the cries, he rushed to the spot. P.W.4 in his chief examination further stated that some altercation was held between P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.1 in his chief examination stated that the accused behaved high handedly by raising cries and obstructed to his legitiamte duties and he also slapped on his cheek, pushed his chair and threatened him with dire consequences. P.W.2 in his chief examination further stated that the accused behaved high handedly and threatened P.W.1 and he slapped on the cheek of P.W.1 and pushed his chair. The learned counsel for the accused argued that as per the version of prosecution, P.W.3 is attending the attender duty at the hall, but P.W.3 in his evidence stated that his duty is on that 13 day at computer room and there is a contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3. He further argued that P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he did not take any action against P.W.3 as he alleged to be allowed the accused in the training programme appearing that the alleged incident was not happened and the prosecution has failed to establish its case. A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, they stated that P.W.3 was on duty attender on the date of happening of the alleged incident.
P.W.3 stated that his duty was on the date is at computer room and the alleged training programme was going on in the hall. But the accused did not elicit where the said computer room is situated and its distance from the hall in which training programme was going on. Moreover, P.W.3 in his evidence stated that whenever the officer called by ranging the bell, he will attend before the officer. This evidence of P.W.3 showing that when the officer called by ranging the bell, he will attend before him. The contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the accused is minor in nature and it will not go into the roots of the case of the prosecution.
A perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he stated that he did not take any action against
P.W.3 and merely on that ground alone, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed out.
22.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the accused lodged a report against P.W.1 before his superior officers alleging that there are heavy drop outs in the Mandal and he did not pay the travelling allowance to the peoples who are coming to the school at a distant place and for that P.W.1 bore grudge against the accused and lodged a false report against him. In this case, as discussed supra, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6 is clearly establishing about the presence of the accused at the Training Programme. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 is also establishing that altercation was also held between P.W.1 and the accused.
A perusal of evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 they categorically stated that when P.W.1 refused to attest on the xerox copy of the caste certificate, the accused behaved high handedly and slapped on the cheek of P.W.1 and also pushed his chair and threatened him with dire consequences. In this case, no enemity was established between P.W.2 and the accused to speak against the accused to falsely implicate 14 him in this case. In this case, the accused did not place any material to show that he lodged a report before the superior officers of P.W.1 against him alleging that there was heavy drop out in his mandal and he did not pay the travelling allowance to the pupils who are coming at a distant place except by putting a suggestion to P.Ws 1 and 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.Ws 1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is consistent and corroborating with each other and it also stood as firm and did not shake at any point of time.
23.The learned counsel for the accused argued that P.W.10 Investigating
Officer in his evidence stated that he examined P.W.3 on the date of happening of the alleged incident, but P.W.3 in his evidence stated that the police examined him on the next day of the happening of the alleged incident and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No doubt, P.W.3 in his evidence stated that the police examined him on the next day of the happening of the alleged incident. But P.W.10 in his evidence stated that after registering the FIR, he examined P.Ws 1 and 2 at the police station and thereafter, he visited to the scene of offence and secured the presence of P.Ws 3 to 6 and examined them and recorded their statements. The contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the accused is minor in nature and it will go into the roots of the case of the prosecution.
24.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that as per the version of P.Ws 1 and 2, the designation of P.W.3 is attender. But P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he is a messenger in Mandal Education Office,
Nimmanapalle. No doubt, P.Ws 1 and 2 stated that P.W.3 was on duty attender on the date of happening of the alleged incident. But P.W.3 in his evidence stated that he is Messenger in MEO Office, Nimmanapalle. A perusal of Ex.P-1 report,
P.W.1 mentioned the designation of P.W.3 as Messenger and on that ground alone, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed out. Moreover, the designation of Attender and Messenger are the nomenclatures of Class-IV
Employees.
15
25.In view of my above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established its case against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 506 and 323 IPC.
This point is answered accordingly.
26.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 353, 506 and 323 I.P.C. and he is convicted U/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 18th day of March, 2020
Sd/-. Syed Ziyauddin
II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
MADANAPALLE
27.When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence he stated that he is having wife, two children and also old aged mother and they are solely depending upon him and prays to show mercy on him.
28.Keeping in view of the nature of offence and manner it is committed, I feel that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of PO Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.
On considering the submissions of the accused and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a lenient view can be taken in this case and hence, I take a lenient view.
29.The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (6) Six months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) One month for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 IPC.
30.The accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (6) Six months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) One month for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 IPC.
31.The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (Fifteen) days for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC.
16
32.The total fine amount payable by the Accused is Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousands only).
33.The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused for the above offences shall run concurrently.
34.The accused never remanded to Judicial custody and for that the set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C does not arise in this case.
35.The accused is appraised of his right of appeal.
Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 18th day of March, 2020.
Sd/-. Syed Ziyauddin
II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
MADANAPALLE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Prosecution: Defence: None P.W1: T.Raja Gopal P.W2: N.Ramachandraiah P.W3: L.Subbaiah P.W4: G.Sudhakar . P.W5: K.Narasimhulu P.W6: N.Padmanabham P.W7: A.Venkatramana . P.W8: B.Mallikarjuna P.W9: D.Siva Prasad P.W10: C.Hari Hara Prasad, S.I. of Police, Nimmanapalle P.S. Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.c. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.6: F.I.R. Ex.P.7: Rough Sketch. Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence: Nil. Material Objects: Nil.
Id/-.S.Z.
II A.J.M.F.C.,
MPL. // True Copy //
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.
17
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: MADANAPALLE.
CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO. 551 OF 2018
Date of offence: 27-08-2018
Date of complaint: 27-08-2018
Date of arrest: 03-10-2018 (Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C Notice)
Date of Release : 03-10-2018
Date of commencement of trial: 08-05-2019
Date of close of trial : 19-12-2019
Date of Judgment : 18-03-2020
Explanation for delay: Due to non service of summons and heavy pendency the trial could not be commenced till 08-05-2019.
Complainant:
The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nimmanapalle Police
Station. (Cr.No.34/2018)
Accused:
Jangam Shiva Shankar Reddy @ Shiva Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Late Chinnapa
Reddy, Caste by Kapu, Cultivation, R/at. Jangamvaripalle Village, H/o.
Vengamvaripalle, Nimmanapalle Mandal.
Section of law: U/s. 353, 506 and 323 I.P.C.
Nature of offence:
U/Sec.353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty
U/Sec.506 IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation
U/Sec.323 IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Finding of the court : Accused is found guilty.
Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 353, 506 and 323 I.P.C. and he is convicted U/Sec.255 (2) of
Cr.P.C.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (6) Six months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousands only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1)
One month for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 IPC.
The accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (6) Six months and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousands only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1)
One month for the offence punishable U/Sec.506 IPC.
The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (Fifteen) days for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC.The total fine amount payable by the Accused is Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only).
18
The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused for the above offences shall run concurrently.
The accused never remanded to Judicial custody and for that the set off
U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C does not arise in this case.
The accused is appraised of his right of appeal.
Sd/-. Syed Ziyauddin
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.
// True Copy //
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle