IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KOILKUNTLA.
Present:- Sri.U.Ram Mohan
Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.FAC Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Koilakuntla.
Thursday, the 25th day of June, 2015
C.C.No.112/2014
State: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S. …. Complainant -Vs-
Kamatham Masthanaiah, S/O Late Eeranna, aged 45 years, Resident of Uyyalawada Village, Uyyalawada Mandal,
Kurnool District. ... Accused
This case has been coming before me on 18-6-2015 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for complainant and Sri.G.L.Narasimhudu,
Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Uyyalawada P.S. laid charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.12/2014 for the offences U/s.323, 506 IPC.
2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that: The accused is resident of Uyyalawada village. The defacto complainant is also resident of same village and they are mother and son by courtesy. LW2 is the son and they are the eye witness to the incident. It is further alleged that the father of the accused namely Eranna married the defacto complainant at about 40 years back, after the death of his first wife. Out of their wedlock
LW2 by name Srinivasulu born. During the life period of the father of the accused he partitioned the property to his both sons. On 07-02-2014 at about 7 P.M while the defacto complainant was present in the house, the accused trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language and 2 demanded her to partition the house property. When she refused to give share in the house property the accused beat her with hands and threatened her with dire consequences. With the timely intervention of the eye witnesses, the accused went away by abusing them. On 08-02-2014 at 8
P.M basing on the report of the defacto complainant, the Police have registered a case in Cr.No.12/2014 for the offences punishable u/ss 448, 323, 506 of IPC and investigated into. On 06-03-2014 the Police arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for remanding him to
Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused.
3. This Court took cognizance of the offences U/s.448, 323 and 506
IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.
4. The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and the contents of the charge sheet for the offences U/s. 448, 323 and 506 IPC have been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1, the alleged eye witnesses as PWs 2, 3 and 4 and Investigating Office as PW5 and got marked Exhibits
P1 to P4.
6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 have been read over and explained to him for which he denied the same and reported no defense witnesses on his behalf.
3
7. While submitting the arguments, the learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of PW1 is clearly connected by the evidences of the eye witnesses are examined as PWs 2 and 3 and their evidence is coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the documents filed on behalf of the prosecution ie., Exs.P1 to P4 clearly establishes the case of the prosecution and found that PWs 1 to 3 and 5 were examined at length and nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution and finally prayed this Court to convict the accused.
8. While replying the arguments to the learned A.P.P, the learned counsel
for the accused vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned A.P.P and
further argued that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as interested to each other and independent witness who is examined as PW4 is not helpful the case of prosecution as he turned hostile and therefore the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 cannot be completed and there are so many contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and they are confirmed by the Investigating officer in his cross examination. Therefore the evidence of prosecution witnesses is denied on lies and therefore their evidence cannot be taken into consideration and finally prayed this Court to acquit the accused.
9. In view of the contradictions above, the point that arises for determination is Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt against the accused for the offences punishable u/ss 448, 323 and 506 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet the accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and the contents of 4 the charge sheet for the offences U/s. 448, 323 and 506 IPC have been read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused.
8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 , and the alleged eye witnesses as PWs 2, 3 and 4 and Investigating Office as PW5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that, PW2 is her son, PW3 is her sister. She further deposed that the accused is her son through the first wife of her husband. The offence took place about one year back at about 7 P.M. On that day the accused came to her house by abusing her that “Lanjadana naaku Cheruvulo Bhagam ledantava, Intilo Bhagam
Ledantava” for which she replied that the property was partitioned about 30 years back and how can he get share again in the property. For which the accused grew wild against her and caught hold of her tuft and dragged her out of her house and fisted her back neck. The said incident was witnessed by PW3 and others and they rescued her from the hands of the accused.
Immediately she telephoned to her son ie., PW2 and he came on the next day of the incident and they herself and her son went to Uyyalawada Police station and gave a complaint against the Accused. Ex.P1 is her complaint.
She was examined by the Police.
10. The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that PW1 is his mother and the accused is his brother through the first wife of his father. He further deposed that on 07-02-2014, PW1 telephoned to him at 8-30 P.M stating that the accused beat her on her head, back and neck by trespassing into 5 her house. He further deposed that the accused claimed share in the house and landed property for which the incident was taken place. On the next day he came to his house and he and PW1 went to the Police station and
PW1 gave complaint. He was examined by the Police.
11. When coming to the evidence of PW3 who is alleged eye witness, she also deposed on the same lines as stated by PW1. She further stated that after trespassing into the house of PW1, the accused abused PW1 stating that “Lanja Chenilo Bhagamundi, Intilo Bhagamundi” for which PW1 replied that 30 years back itself his share was given in all the properties.
Then the accused caught hold of her tuft, dragged her out of the house fisted on the head, back and neck. She further deposed that as it was dark she did not witnessed who rescued her. She further deposed that the Police did not examined her with regard to this case.
12. In this case, another eye witness PW4 did not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He clearly and categorically deposed that he does not know any thing about this case and he did not witnessed the incident and Police did not examined him. As this witness did not supported the case of prosecution the learned A.P.P sought permission to treat the witness as hostile and permission is granted. In the cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he has stated before the Police as in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and therefore the contradictory portion in 161
Cr.P.C statement of PW4 is marked as Ex.P2.
13. The evidence helpful for the prosecution is the evidence of PW5,
Investigating Officer. He clearly deposed that on 08-02-2014 at 8 P.M while he was present in the Police station PW1 came and presented Ex.P1 complaint and he registered the same as Cr.No.12/2014 of Uyyalawada P.S 6 for the offences punishable u/ss 448, 323 and 506 IPC and submitted F.I.R to all concerned. Ex.P3 is the original F.I.R. He examined PW1 in the Police station and recorded her statement. On the next day he rushed to the scene of offence situated near the house of PW1 in Uyyalawada village and secured the presence of PWs 2,3 and LW4, examined and recorded their statements.
He prepared the rough sketch on the scene of offence and the same is marked as Ex.P4. He arrested the accused on 06-03-2014 and send him to the Court for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed
Charge sheet against the accused.
14. A careful reading of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 which shows that on the date of the incident the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant/PW1 and demanded his share in the property and when PW1 refused his share and he revolted against PW1 and beat her and threatened her with dire consequences.
15. On this arguments it is relevant to go through the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3. In this case, except the evidence of PW1, the evidence of PWs 2, and 3 cannot be treated as eye witnesses. In this case PW2 is not eye witness as admitted by her. His evidence is to the effect that on telephonic information he came to the scene of offence on the next day. Therefore he is not at all eye witness to the incident. When coming to the evidence of
PW3 she clearly and categorically stated that she was not at all examined by the Police. When she clearly stated that she was not examined by the Police her evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Admittedly PW4 who is alleged eye witness in support of the case of prosecution turned hostile.
Therefore the prosecution has to rely on the evidence of PW1 only.
Admittedly in this case there is property dispute between PW1 and the
Accused. In the above said circumstances only some incident would have 7 been happened and the same was taken to the notice of the Police by filing of Ex.P1 complaint and the police would have registered the case against the accused. It is settled law that basing on the sole testimony of the defacto complainant conviction cannot be imposed. There must be some evidence of independent witnesses. In this case PW3 who is alleged eye witness clearly stated in her evidence in chief that the Police did not examined her. When she was not examined by the Police, it can be presumed that she is a planted witness. No doubt the evidence of PW5 is formal. His evidence is only with regard to the investigation. In the cross examination he clearly and categorically admitted that he has not examined some other neighbours to her house are shown in the rough sketch. He clearly admitted that in 161
Cr.P.C statement of LW4 he has written that the offence was taken place on 06-02-2014. But in Ex.P1 complaint it was reported that the offence was taken place on 07-02-2014. When the incident was taken place on 07-02- 2014 how can he write the alleged date of incident is 06-02-2014. It is major contradiction. In the cross-examination of PW1 she also admitted that on the next day of the incident she telephoned to PW2 and narrated the incident. After the information PW2 came to her house at 4 P.M and they went to the Police Station at 4 P.M. But in the evidence of PW5,
Investigating Officer, he deposed that PWs 1 and 2 came to the Police station at 8-30 P.M. Therefore there is variation with regard to passing of information from PW1 to PW2. In the cross examination PW2 deposed that on 08-02-2014 in the evening hours they proceeded to the Police station.
He further deposed that to the dictation of PW1 he prepared complaint on 09-02-2014. Therefore there is variation found in the preparation of complaint ie., Ex.P1 and presentation of complaint in the P.S.
16. In view of the said contradictions it can be presumed that due to the property disputes only PW1 with the help of PWs 2 and 3 would have 8 created the concocted story and might have given complaint against the accused who demanded for partition and therefore the accused is acquitted for the guilt as the prosecution utterly failed to establish of the case against the accused.
17. In the result, Accused found not guilty of the offences U/s. 448, 323 and 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of 6 months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected,
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 24th day of June, 2015.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nandyal, FAC Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class Koilkuntla.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1: Kamatham Venkata Lakshmamma /defacto complainant. None P.W.2Kamatham Sreenivasulu; P.W.3.V.Venkata Subbamma; P.W.4.Ankala Chinna Reddy; P.W.5.M.Venkateswarlu;
Exhibits marked for Prosecution:- Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint by P.W.1 Nil Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P3. Original F.I.R. Ex.P4.Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
JMFC, NDL.
FAC JMFC KKL
9
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL
C.C.No.782/2013
1. Date of Offence 19-10-2013
2. Date of Report or Complaint 19-10-2013
3. Date of Appearance of the 23-10-2013 accused
4. Date of Release on bail 23-10-2013
5. Date of Commencement of trial 16-6-2015
6. Date of close of the trial 16-6-2015
7. Date of Sentence of Order 17-6-2015
8. Explanation of delay and remarks -
Complainant State: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluk P.S. 1.Gopavaram Prathapa Reddy, age 47 yrs. S/o.Late Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy 2.Gopavaram Subbarathnamma @ Rathnamma, age 43 yrs. Accused W/o.Prathapa Reddy
Both are r/o.Kranthi Nagar Village, Nandyal Mandal. Offence U/s.506,509 r/w 34 IPC Finding Accused found not guilty.
Sentence In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offences
U/s.506,509 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted
U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.
10
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nandyal.
. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.