1
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Smt. G. Malathi,
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
FAC / Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram
Tuesday, the 8th day of August, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No. 250 of 2016
(P.R.C. 20 of 2016 on the file of A.J.F.C.M, Ananthapuram)
Name of the Complainant :State Rep. by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kuderu P.S
Description of the accusedKalekurthi Suresh, Aged 24 years, S/o K.Chandranna,Occ:Cultivation.R/o Muddalapuram Village of Kuderu Mandal.
Offences:U/secs. 307 IPC
Plea of accused :Not guilty
Finding of the Judge :Not guilty
Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The MO.1 and other unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Cr. No. and P.S concerned :120/2015 of Kuderu P.S.
This sessions case coming on 01.08.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri B.Sanjay, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub- Inspector of Police, Kuderu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 120/2015 for the offence U/sec. 307 IPC.
2. In brief the averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-
LW.1/K.Parvathamma is the native of Muddalapauram Village of Kuderu
Mandal and she is living by cultivation and LW.2/ K.Chandranna had two wives, and LW.1 is his first wife and he is also having second wife & her name is Padmavathi. As per the story of the prosecution, LW.1 through his first wife blessed with one son by name K.Mahesh Chandra, who is LW.3 in the present case and he is doing private job at Bangalore city and LW.2 2 through his second wife Padmavathi blessed with two sons, elders son is
K.Suresh ( accused in this case) and younger son is K.Naresh and it is the contention of the prosecution, as LW.2 is having two wives, disputes arose in between both of them with regard to the distribution of the property and about one month back, the accused beat on the head of LW.1 and caused bleeding injury with regard to the disputes arose with regard to the construction of bath room in front of LW.1's house and in this connection a case was also filed in Kuderu Police Station, due to which the accused bore grudge and while so, 16.12.2015, at about 12.30 P.M, when LW.1 for recharging her cell and came to her house, she identified the accused was already hidden and armed with long rigid stick and he reached to LW.1 with intent to murder Lw.1 and he beat LW.1 on her two knees, right leg thigh, right hand shoulder, right hand elbow, upper part, right hand wrist, left hand shoulder, left hand wrist and on left side of the head with a strong decision.
Then LW.1 fell down at the place by crying loudly, on hearing her cries, when
LW.2 rushed to the said place, the accused fled away from the place. As per the story of the prosecution, due to attack of the accused, LW.1 sustained fracture injuries over her right leg knee, thigh part and left hand shoulder and right hand elbow. Then Lw.2 shifted the LW.1 to Govt. General Hospital,
Ananthapuram for treatment.
Basing on the statement of LW.1/ K.Parvathamm, a case in Cr.No.
120/2015 U/Sec. 307 IPC was registered against the accused by the
LW.8G.Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuderu Police Station and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW.8 inspected the scene of offence and prepared scene observation mahazar and seized one stick under cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.4/ K.Ramanjula Reddy and LW.5/D.Ravi and
LW.8 arrested the accused on 08.01.2016 at Kuderu village bus stop and send him to judicial custody. LW.6/ Dr. V.Santhi Swaroop, who treated the
LW.1, issued wound certificate opining that injuries sustained by her are grievous in nature. Hence the charge.
3
3. The charge sheet was taken cognizance by the Addl.Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Ananthapuram as case in P.R.C. 20/2016 for the offence U/sec.
307 IPC.
4. After following due procedure, as contemplated under law, the Addl.
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuram, has committed the case under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. to the court of Sessions, Sessions Division
Ananthapuram. After receipt of case material, the Honourable Sessions
Judge, Ananthapuramu has taken the matter on file as S.C. 250 of 2016 and
made over to this Court for disposal according to law.
5. After appearance of the accused, this court examined him under section 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C for which he pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge U/Sec. 307 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs. P.1 to
P.14 and MO.1 and closed its side evidence. On behalf of the defence no witnesses are examined, and no documents are marked.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.
8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by referring the evidence of PW.1 has argued that, here in the instant case, the accused is charged U/Sec. 307
IPC and Pw.1 deposed that PW.2 is her husband, PW.3 is her son and she is the 1st wife of PW.2, and 2nd wife name is Padmavathi, she is also blessed with two sons and accused herein is the son of second wife of her husband.
According to the contention of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, as the said
PW.2 has two wives, the disputes arose with regard to the distribution of the 4 property, so in this regard the accused bore grudge against the PW.1 and he attacked on the PW.1 and in this regard a case is registered against him as
Cr.No. 105/ 15 U/Sec. 324 IPC. According to the contention of the learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, since then the accused bore grudge in his mind and on 16.12.2015 at about 12.30 PM, he with an intent to murder PW.1, beat the Pw.1, due to which she fell down, on hearing her cries, PW.2 rushed to the spot. According to him, as per the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that, due to the attack of the accused on her with a stick, she received injuries on her right leg knees, thigh part and left hand shoulder and right hand elbow and her version is corroborated by the evidence of Doctor and the police have also produced MO.1, so the prosecution witnesses proved that the injures received by the PW.1 are due to the attack of accused, as her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Doctor and Investigating Officer, hence he prayed the court to convict the accused person.
9. The learned defence counsel filed his written arguments, by contending that, as per the evidence of PW.1, as per the recitals in Ex.P.1, the incident occurred on 09.11.2015 at 09.15 AM, as PW.1 called a mason to construct bath room at their house, then the accused warned the mason not to construct the bath room, then mason went away, then she went inside of the house and closed the doors, then the accused pushed the doors and beat her with stick on her head, due to which she received bleeding injury. In the meanwhile when her husband came there and they went to the police station and they gave Ex.P.1 complaint. According to him, even though, here in the instant case, the accused is charged U/Sec. 307 IPC, but the prosecution failed to prove the intention on the side of the accused to murder the PW.1 and no evidence is placed before th court in order to prove the same. Even though, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8, they did not deposed a single word with regard to the intention on the side of accused to murder PW.1. So, as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, according to him the motive for the said incident is the property dispute. Even though, as per the arguments of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, there is a corroboration to the evidence of Doctor and PW.1, but according to him, as seen from the records, 5 the Doctor issued wound certificate of PW.1 basing on the documents i.e.,
Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. As per the evidence of PW.4, the said Ex.P.4 is prepared by the Radiologist, but he was not cited as witness, so he is not examined, so the said document cannot be looked into without examining the
Radiologist. Further, there is a shift of scene of offence and further he argued that there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1, to that of the evidence of doctor, as the said Doctor admitted in his cross-examination, what all he stated in his evidence, he failed to mention the same in his wound certificate and he simply issued Ex.P.5 basing on the recitals in Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, in such case, his evidence is not admissible, as the evidence of
PW.1 is contradicted by the evidence of PW.2 and PW3 to PW.8, hence as there is no corroboration. In support of this contention he relied on a decision reported in 2007 (1) ASLT (Crl.) 183 (SC), wherein it was held that; “ Inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 as to how many people went to the police station, who scribed the report and where- Pw.1 indicated different places as the scene of offence- When the place of occurrence itself has not been established not proper to accept the prosecution version”.
Hence he prayed for acquittal of the accused person.
10. Now the point for consideration is
Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused
for the offence U/Sec. 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.POINT:- The case of the prosecution is that, LW.1/K.Parvathamma is the native of Muddalapauram Village of Kuderu Mandal and she is living by cultivation and LW.2/ K.Chandranna had two wives, and LW.1 is his 1st wife and he is also having second wife her name is Padmavathi. As per the story of the prosecution, LW.1 through his first wife blessed with one son by name
K.Mahesh Chandra, who is LW.3 in the present case and he is doing private job at Bangalore city and LW.2 through his second wife Padmavathi blessed with two sons, elders son is K.Suresh ( accused in this case) and younger son is K.Naresh and it is the contention of the prosecution, as LW.2 is having two wives, disputes arose in between both of them with regard to the distribution 6 of the property and about one month back, the accused beat on the head of
LW.1 and caused bleeding injury with regard to the disputes arose with regard to the construction of bath room in front of LW.1's house and in this connection a case has also filed in Kuderu Police Station, due to which the accused bore grudge and while so, 16.12.2015, at about 12.30 P.M, when
LW.1 is recharging her cell and when she came near to her house, she identified the accused was already hidden and armed with long rigid stick and he reached to LW.1 with intent to murder Lw.1 and he beat LW.1 on her two knees, right leg thigh, right hand shoulder, right hand elbow, upper part, right hand wrist, left hand shoulder, left hand wrist and on left side of the head with a strong decision. Then LW.1 fell down at the place by crying loudly, on hearing her cries, when LW.2 rushed to the said place, the accused fled away from the place. As per the story of the prosecution, due to attack of the accused, LW.1 sustained fracture injuries over her right leg knee, thigh part and left hand shoulder and right hand elbow. Basing on the statement of
LW.1/ K.Parvathamm, a case in Cr.No. 120/2015 U/Sec. 307 IPC was registered against the accused.
12. On hearing both counsels arguments and on perusal of the records, it is disclosing that, the offence with which the accused is charged U/Sec. 307 IPC, in such case as argued by the learned defence counsel, the duty cast on the prosecution id to show that the intention on the side of the accused person to kill the PW.1, in such case it can be said that, the prosecution has proved the intention on the side of the accused person, supported by the evidence of material witness, injured i.e., PW.1 and also the medical evidence, in such case the accused can be connected with the case.
13. Here in the instant case, as per the arguments of the both counsels, it is not in dispute that, the said accused person is the son of the 2nd wife of
PW.2, & the said fact was also admitted by the PW.2 and it is an admitted fact that the PW.2 is having two wives and PW.1 is first wife and there are property disputes in between his both wives and in this regard about one month back the accused beat on the head of the PW.1 and caused bleeding injury to her, with regard to the dispute arose at the time of the construction of bath room infront of the house of PW.1 and in this regard a case was also 7 filed in Kuderu Police Station and as per the contention of the prosecution due to the preferring of the said case against the accused, the accused bore grudge against the PW.1 and so on 16.12.2015 at about 12.30 PM when PW.1 was recharging her cell and when she came to her house, then she has noticed the accused who was already armed with long rigid stick and reached PW.1 with an intent to murder PW.1, so he beat the PW.1 on her two knees, right leg thigh and also on the right hand shoulder and also on the upper part of the right hand wrist, left hand shoulder, left hand wrist, left side of the head, due to which the said PW.1 fell down by raising cries, then
PW.2 reached near PW.1 and on noticing the PW.2, the accused fled away.
14. It is the story of the prosecution, the said PW.1 sustained fracture injuries over her right hand, right leg knee, thigh part and left hand shoulder, right hand elbow. Though by referring the evidence of PW.1, the learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor has argued that, her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Doctor, but for which the learned defence counsel has argued that, except the evidence of PW.1, no other witnesses have witnessed the incident. Admittedly, as there are property disputes in between the family of the accused and PW.1, there is a every likelihood of PW.1 stating against the accused by taking advantage of the injuries, she received by fall and accordingly it is their contention, here in the instant case also it is their case due to disputes with regard to the properties, the said PW.1 implicated the accused person by taking advantage of the injuries, which she received by fall and further even though as per the recitals in Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 documents, it is disclosing that, the Doctor who is examined as PW.4 he deposed that
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 documents are prepared by the Radiologist, but he was not cited as a witness. As per the contention of the learned defence counsel, without examining the Radiologist the said X-rays cannot be looked into, because he is the proper person to speak in this regard and further he argued that the said PW.4 have given first aid and he gave opinion stating that the injuries are grievous in nature, but he did not specifically stated, which injuries are grievous and which injuries are simple and further he admitted in his evidence that, what he has stated in his evidence, he failed to mention the same in wound certificate and he issued the wound certificate Ex.P.5 8 basing on the X-ray reports. So, according to him, PW.4 is not in a position to say that, Ex.P.4 is part of case record or not, hence his evidence is not admissible and the evidence of PW.1 is contradicting to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 to PW.8, hence he prayed for acquittal of the accused person.
15. Here, as already discussed by me, as per the ocular evidence of Pw.1, it is disclosing that, on 16.12.2015, at 12.30 PM, when she went to the house in order to recharge her cell phone, then the accused beat her with a stick on her two legs, due to which she sustained injuries and she fell down and again he beat her with a stick all over her body, due to which she received fracture injury on her right hand and left hand and her evidence is to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses and by the evidence of Doctor, then her version can be believed upon. But, as per the contention of the
PW.1, she gave the complaint to the police in the hospital at 6.00 or 7.00 PM on the same day, but the said PW.1 she admitted in her evidence that, on earlier occasion on several times, the accused beat her and caused injuries to her for the sake of the properties. In her cross-examination, the said PW.1 has admitted that in the year 1975 her husband kept 5 acres of land in her name, and it is the version of the defence that, due to property disputes, the accused who is the son of the second wife of PW.2, he was unable to continue his studies and he discontinued his degree due to financial problems and it is their story that, the said PW.1 got educated her son and he did M.Sc computers and the said fact was also admitted by the said PW.1 in her cross- examination, which goes to show that, she herself admitted that due to financial problems, the accused and his brother discontinued their studies and her son have completed M.Sc computers, which in turn supporting the version of the learned defence counsel, due to marital status of the mother of the accused, who is the 2nd wife of PW.2, the said children of 2nd wife of PW.2 who is the accused, they unable to have good status and they faced financial problems and the said fact was also admitted by the PW.1, who is the 1st wife of PW.2, which in turn supporting the version of the defence that, due to said discrimination and due to giving of the some property by the husband of
PW.1 i.e., PW.2 in the name of PW.1, the accused bore grudge against the 9 family of PW.1 and that is the motive of the said incident and the said fact was also not denied by the accused, as well by the PW.1.
16. Here in the instant case, as the accused is facing the charge U/Sec.
307IPC, in such case, the prosecution has to establish the intention on the side of the accused person to kill the said PW.1. Though, the said PW.1 attributes overt acts against the accused person by stating that on 16.12.2015, at 12.30 PM, the accused attacked on her, while she was recharging her cell phone by coming into their house, so according to her the said incident occurred inside of her house. Even though, she attributes specific overt acts against the accused, but she failed to state the intention on the side of the accused person by stating, he attacked her with an intention to kill her. Even though, she stated that on the said date, the accused attacked her with a serava katte and the same is marked as MO.1.
Though, it was suggested to her that she fell down on the vanka and sustained injuries, she denied the same and it is the contention of the defence that, due to property disputes, by taking advantage of the injuries received by falling in vanka, the said PW.1 foisted the case against the accused person and though she did not admitted the same, but if her version is true that due to beating of the accused, she received fracture injuries, as deposed by her, definitely her clothes will be stained with blood, but she herself admitted in her cross-examination that police did not seized any blood stained clothes, in such case she receiving fracture injuries due to the attack of the accused with serva katte is doubtful, because, in natural course, if any person attacks on a particular person with stick by using force, definitely the said person will receive bleeding injuries, but here in the instant case, though PW.1 has stated that due to attack of accused on her with stick she received fracture injuries to her thigh region and also to her hand, but she failed to hand over blood stained clothes, in such case, she receiving of injuries due to the attack of the accused on her with a stick is impossible and unbelievable, because if a person receiving bleeding & fracture injuries, her clothes will be stained with blood, but here in the instant case, as per the admission of PW.1 that, she failed to hand over blood stained clothes to the 10 police, in such case her version with regard to the receiving of injuries due to the attack of accused on the said date is doubtful.
17. Even though, PW.2 who is her husband has corroborated her version and he also admitted that, the accused is the son of his 2nd wife and he beat
PW.1 on her hands and legs with a stick, due to which Pw.1 fell down and he also deposed before the court that, Pw.1 sustained fracture injuries to her legs and two hands and then the accused went away by seeing him, but in his cross-examination he gave a different version stating that he stated
before the police that, there are some disputes in their family in respect of
the partition of the property, which in turn supporting the version of the defence that due to the said property disputes, the present case was preferred by the PW.1 and further, he stated that the alleged incident occurred infront of the house of his 1st wife with a distance of 12 feet, at the time of the incident he was present at a distance of 40 feet in front of his house and his house is facing towards south and the house of his 1st wife is facing towards east. He also admitted that he heard the cries of Pw.1 when the accused was beating the PW.1. On hearing the said cries, he rushed to the spot, then the accused went away. So, here as per the evidence of PW.1, the incident occurred inside of her house and as per the evidence of her husband, who is examined as PW.2, the said incident occurred in front of the house of PW.1, but not inside of the house of PW.1, as deposed by PW.1, in such case the said PW.2 witnessing the incident and on seeing him, the accused ran away from the said spot is doubtful. In support of the same, the learned defence counsel relied on a decision reported in 2007 (1) ASLT (Crl.) 183 (SC), wherein it was held that; “ Inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 as to how many people went to the police station, who scribed the report and where- Pw.1 indicated different places as the scene of offence- When the place of occurrence itself has not been established not proper to accept the prosecution version”.
18. Even though, the prosecution examined PW.3, he corroborated the version of PW.1 and PW.2 that on 16.12.2015 his father informed him about the accused beating his mother and she was admitted in the hospital, 11 wherein through his mother, he came to know that the accused beat his mother with a stick in respect of dispute with regard to the construction of the bath room, though, he deposed with regard to the knowing about the incident, as he is not an eye witness to the incident, his evidence is of no use.
Further, though the prosecution examined PW.5 and PW.6 who are the witnesses, who attested in the seizure mahazarnama, they simply stated
before the court that the police obtained their signatures in the police
station, so the said PW.5 and PW.6, they turned hostile and they did not supported the case of the prosecution. So, here in the instant case, from the evidence of PW.1, it is disclosing that , she received fracture injuries due to the attack of the accused person on her on the alleged date. Though, from the evidence of PW.4 the Doctor who examined her, he deposed in his evidence that on 16.12.2015, at about 3.00 PM, he examined the patient and found the following injuries. Swelling of left arm and left fore arm and right arm, and right fore arm and right leg, and suspected the fracture of both bones of fore arm and fracture both the bones of right leg. Laceration of size 2 x 1 cm on right arm. Fracture in humorous left, fracture surgical neck humorous right. Two lacerations 1 x 1 on he left frontal region of skull,
Laceration 4 x 1 cm on the fore arm. According to his evidence, the X-ray report bearing No. 1514/B 7019 and X-ray report 1514/B7179, he noticed fracture injuries and according to the said report, he gave opinion that the injuries he noticed on the body of PW.1 are grievous in nature. But the said
Doctor, he admitted in his cross-examination that the X-ray under Ex.P.2 does not contain the number as 1514 and the name of patient is also written in ink and he also admitted that he do not know who wrote the letters in
Ex.P.3 though he gave first aid to the PW.1, in such case it is difficult to believe the version of the prosecution that the said X-rays, which were marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are taken by one Nagaraju, Radiologist, in such case the said Radiologist should be cited as a witness, as he is the proper person to speak with regard to the fracture injuries received by the Pw.1 and who took her x-ray films, but he was not examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12
19. Further, on perusal of the said Ex.P.3 and P.4 X-rays, it does not contain the number as 1514, but in the chief examination of said PW.4, he clearly mentioned the X-ray report bearing No. 1514 /B 7019 and another X- ray 1514/B7179 dated 18.12.2015. Basing on the said reports, he opined that the injuries received by the injured are grievous in nature, in such case the
Doctor must be in a position to show that the said 1514 is MLC number of the said patient referred in the said X-ray & is the PW.1 in the case and the said X-ray, on which the prosecution is relying is x-ray reports of the said
Parvathamma, but on the said X-ray report, though the name of the patient is written in ink with manual operation, but the Doctor is not in a position to say who wrote the same on the said X-ray reports. Further, the said report is silent with regard to the M.L.C number, though it was mentioned as MLC 1514, but the report is silent with regard to the said number, in such case though from the said X-ray report, it is disclosing that the said patient have received fracture injuries, but the prosecution failed to prove that the X-ray reports on which they are relying are the reports pertaining to the Pw.1 in the case and she received the said injuries on the alleged date due to the attack of the accused person. Further, the said PW.4 who is Medical Officer who gave first aid to the Pw.1, he admitted in his cross-examination, what he has stated in his evidence, he failed to mention the same in his wound certificate, in such case his evidence is of no value. Because, he is the person to speak with regard to the injuries what he has noticed on examination of the patient, but he clearly admitted in his cross-examination that what he stated in his evidence, he failed to mention the same in his wound certificate and it is the case of the defence that the recitals in wound certificate were subsequently added due to disputes with the accused person at the instance of the PW.1, in order to disbelieve their version, the prosecution did not placed any material before the court, though he deposed before the court that he cannot say whether Ex.P.4 is part of the case records or not. Though, he denied that Ex.P.4 is the created document, but he stated that as it is drafted in ink, it does not contain any printed column and it is the contention of the defence that due to property disputes in between the accused and
PW.1, the said Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 X-rays are brought into existence, in order to 13 disbelieve the version of the defence, the prosecution ought to have examined the Radiologist, who is the proper person to speak in this regard, but he was not examined.
20. Though, from the said recitals, on which the prosecution is relying, it is disclosing that the said PW.1 received fracture injuries, but the said Doctor who was examined as PW.4, he gave an inconsistent version by stating that he gave his opinion that the injuries received by the injured are grievous in nature, but he failed to mention specifically about the injuries which he noticed on PW.1, which are grievous in nature and which are simple in nature and he failed to mention about the fracture injuries received by the said PW.1, in such case it is difficult to believe the version of PW.1 that due to the attack of the accused with a stick, she received the said injuries, which the Doctor has noticed. Further, the said Doctor has admitted in his cross-examination what he has stated in his evidence, he failed to mention the same in his wound certificate, which in turn corroborates the version of the defence that, the said document is brought in to picture for the purpose of the case.
Further, the said Doctor has admitted that there is a possibility of receiving of the said injuries by the PW.1 by fall on a sharp edged surface and it is the version of the defence that by taking advantage of the injuries received by the PW.1, by falling on vanka, she filed the present case against the accused.
In order to disbelieve their version, the prosecution did not placed any material before the court, so there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 to that of the evidence of Doctor and the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries received by the said PW.1 is due to the attack of the accused on her with a stick and she received fracture injuries and further it failed to establish the intention on the side of the accused person to kill the PW.1.
21. Further, even though the Investigating Officer, he deposed with regard to the receiving of medical admit intimation and he registering the case, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that the PW.1 stated before him that when she fell down on the ground she raised cries, then her husband came to her, which in turn falsifying the version of PW.2 that on hearing the cries of his wife i.e., PW.1, he went to the spot, on seeing him the accused went away.
If the said PW.2 have noticed the same, he would have stated the same 14
before the Investigating Officer, but as per the admission of the Investigating
Officer, it is disclosing that after noticing the wife of PW.2 falling down on the ground, when she raised cries, PW.2 went to the spot, in such case he noticing the accused beating his wife and his wife raising cries is doubtful and further as argued by the learned defence counsel, as per the recitals in
Ex.P.13 Rough Sketch, it is disclosing that the Investigating Officer has shown the scene of offence as a mud road. It is not the case of the PW.1 and PW.2 that the said incident took place at mud road and according to the contention of the PW.1, the incident occurred inside of her house and as per the version of PW.2, the said incident occurred in front of the house of Pw.1, which is contrary and further as per the version of the Investigating Officer, the said incident took place on mud road, but not in side the house of Pw.1 or in front of the house of Pw.1. Though, it was suggested to him that the MO.1 is available in open market, and it is planted for the purpose of the case and he denied the same but the prosecution failed to prove the intention on the side of the accused person to kill Pw.1 due to property disputes and accordingly he with such intention attacked her with a stick i.e., MO.1 and caused injuries to her, which are fracture injuries, in order to connect him with the case though the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8, but there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 to that of the evidence of
Doctor and Investigating officer with regard to the receiving of the injuries by the said PW.1, to that of the recitals in Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate and further, the prosecution failed to establish the X-ray reports, they have produced
before the court, are the X-ray reports pertaining to the said Parvathamma,
which alleged to have taken by the Radiologist on the alleged date, as the
M.L.C number is not tallying with that of the number mentioned in the said
Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 X-ray reports to that of the number stated in the evidence of PW.4, in such case it is difficult to believe that the said X-ray reports pertaining to the said Parvathamma was taken by the said Doctor on the alleged incident and the prosecution has failed to prove in this regard.
22. Further, as per the recitals in Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, in it, the
Doctor has mentioned that he examined the injured on 16.12.2016 at 3.00
PM, but not on 16.12.2015, as the date of receiving of injuries by PW.1 was 15 deposed by her as 16.12.2015, in such case there is a variation with regard to the said date, but the said Doctor have gave his opinion that the injuries he mentioned in the wound certificate are grievous in nature, though he has recited on the back side of the Ex.P.5 that the injuries he noticed as per the X- ray taken by one Nagaraju, but the said Doctor gave his opinion prior to the noticing of the injuries, he observed on Pw.1 on the back of the said wound certificate, he mentioned the injuries he noticed in the X-ray of the said
PW.1, which as per the contention of the defence the said injuries were subsequently added & in order to disbelieve the same the prosecution failed to place any record before the court & in general the Doctors on examining the patient and noting the nature of injuries received by the injured, they will verify the same, & they will give their opinion, but here in the instant case the Doctor failed to state which injuries are grievous in nature, which are simple in nature, in such case the said wound certificate cannot be looked into. As he gave his opinion prior to the mentioning of injuries on the backside of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, in order to disbelieve the version of defence due to property disputes, by taking advantage of the injuries of PW.1 by fall, the injuries mentioned on the back side of Ex.P.5 are subsequently added. Though, it is the case of the prosecution due to property disputes, the accused attacked the PW.1 with a stick and caused fracture injuries to her, as per the above discussion, as there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 to that of the evidence of Doctor and Investigating Officer and further there is a shifting of scene and the prosecution failed to locate exact scene, in such case it is difficult to believe the version of PW.1, in order to connect the accused with the case, which entitles him benefit of doubt and accordingly he is acquitted.
23. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The MO.1 and other unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of August, 2017.
16
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ananthapuramu.
FAC/Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge
Ananthapuram.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 : K.Parvathamma None PW.2 : K.Chandranna PW.3 : K.Mahesh PW.4 : Santhi Swaroop PW.5 : Ramanjula Reddy PW.6 : D.Ravi PW.7: Dastagiri PW.8: G.Raju Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P.1 : Complaint statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Case Sheet Ex.P.3 : 16 X-ray films taken by one P.Nagaraju Radiologist, Ex.P.4 : X-ray reports taken by Dr.P.Nagaraju Radiologist, Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW.5 on scene of observation mahazar Ex.P.7 : Signature of PW.5 on arrest mahazar Ex.P.8 : Signature of PW.6 on scene of observation mahazar Ex.P.9 : Signature of PW.6 on arrest mahazar Ex.P.10: Medical Admit Intimation Ex.P.11: First Information Report Ex.P.12: Scene observation and Seizure mahazar Ex.P.13: Rough Sketch Ex.P.14: Arrest and Confession Mahazar
Exhibits marked for Defence
-None-
Mos. Marked
MO.1: Stick
P.A.S.J.
17
Tabular form to be Annexed to the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Cr.P.C.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :ANANTHAPURAMU
SESSIONS CASE NO. 250/2016
PRC.No.20/2016 on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuram
1. Name of the ComplainantState by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuderu P.S. in Cr.No. 120 /2015 2.Description of accused: Kalekurthi Suresh, Aged 24 years, S/o K.Chandranna, Occ: Cultivation. R/o Muddalapuram Village of Kuderu Mandal.
3. Offence U/ss 307 IPC
4. Plea of accusedNot guilty 5.Date of offence 16.12.2015 6.Date of complaint16.12.2015 7.Date of appearance of the accused31.03.2016 8.Date of committal28.04.2016 9.Date of commencement of trial08.08.2016 10.Date of close of trial27.02.2017 11.Date of sentence or order08.08.2017 12.Sentence or order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The MO.1 and other unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
13. Explanations for the delay in committal court :
Case is taken on file against the accused and numbered as PRC No. 20/2016 on the file of AJFCM, Ananthapuram. After appearance of the accused case is committed to the court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu.
Explanation for the delay in Addl..Asst.Sessions Judge’s Court, Ananthapuramu
On 10.05.2016 the case was made over to this Court by the Hon’ble Sessions
Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to law. On 23.06.2016 accused was
appeared before the court. On 18.07.2016 charge was framed against the accused. On 08.08.2016 PW.1 was examined, on 03.10.2016 PW.2 and PW.3 were examined, on 18.10.2016 PW.4 was examined, on 24.01.2017 PW.5 and PW.6 were examined, on 27.02.2017 PW.7 and PW.8 were examined, the evidence of remaining witnesses was given up by the learned Addl. P.P., and accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC, heard arguments and posted to 08.08.2017 for judgment.
On 08.08.2017 : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The MO.1 and other unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,
ANANTHAPURAMU.
FAC/Addl.Asst. Sessions Judge
Ananthapuram.
Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu Copy to the A.J.F.C.M., Ananthapuram Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.
18 19