1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GADWAL

Friday, this the 17th day of October, 2014.

PRESENT : Sri.P.Prabhakar,
III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,
Gadwal

Sessions Case No. 641 of 2011

(Preliminary Registered Case No. 45/2011 committed by Smt.M.Eunice,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal)

(Crime No. 49/2011 of Maldakal PS)

Name of the Accused :

A-1) Telugu Meesala Ramudu S/o Hanmanna @ Pedda Yerranna, Age:

40 years, Caste:Telugu, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of
Peddapally village of Maldakal Mandal

A-2) Telugu Kishtanna S/o Hanmanna @ Pedda Yerranna, Age: 35

years, Caste: Telugu, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of
Peddapally village of Maldakal Mandal

A-3) Telugu Srinivasulu S/o Hanmanna @ Pedda Yerranna, Age: 30

years, Cate: Telugu, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of
Peddapally village of Maldakal Mandal

A-4) Telugu Nagaraju S/o Hanmanna @ Pedda Yerranna, Age: 28

years, Caste: Telugu, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of
Peddapally village of Maldakal Mandal

A-5) Telugu Dastagiri S/o Late Ranganna, Age: 25 years, Caste:

Telugu, Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Peddapally village of
Maldakal Mandal

A-6) Telugu Venkatesh S/o Ranganna, Age: 25 years, Caste:Telugu,

Occupation:Agriculture, Resident of Peddapally village of
Maldakal Mandal

Nature of offence : Under Sections 147, 148, 352, 324, 326, 307
r/w 149 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : A1 to A6 are found not guilty of the offences

punishable under sections 148, 452, 307, 324,
326 r/w 149 IPC. They are acquitted under
section 235(1) Cr.P.C of the above said
offences. Bail bonds of the accused shall
remain in force for a period of six months from
today. Mos 1 to 4 and other unmarked
properties if any are ordered to be destroyed
on expiry of appeal time.
 2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 19-

09-2014 in the presence of M.Venkoba Rao, Advocate for accused and
Sri E.Venkateshwarlu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant,
and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court
delivered the following :
JUDG MENT

1. Station House Officer, Maldakal charge sheeted A1 to A6

under sections 147,148, 452, 307, 324, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC

2. Case of prosecution in brief is as follows:-

3. On 19.06.2011 at 2100 hours Syed Farad Hussain/PW.15

SHO Maldakal PS received a written complaint from defacto

complainant Telugu Gopal/PW.1 in which it is stated on that day in the

evening hours at about 1900 hours while he was chit chatting with one

Rajashekhar Reddy/PW.6 in front of the house of Seetharam Reddy in

the village Telugu Ranganna who is also resident of Peddapally came to

him and picked up quarrel due to previous enmity, then he went into

the house of his uncle Telugu Chinna Ramudu/PW.4 located near by the

house of Seetharami Reddy and sat there. After sometime Ranganna

and A1 to A6 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly armed

with sticks and iron rods trespassed into the house of his uncle PW.4,

attacked him and other inmates causing injuries to him, his cousins

Teugu Rajavardhan, Telugu Chinna Laxmanna, and Telugu Raghu/PWs

2,3 and 13 and also his uncle and aunt Telugu Chinna Ramudu and

Jayamma/PWs 4 and 7. Meanwhile Telugu Chinna Ramudu/PW.5,

Alwala Rajashekhar Reddy/PW.6 and some others rushed and came to

their rescue and then sent the injured to GAH, Gadwal in 108

ambulance for treatment. Basing on that complaint he registered a

case in crime No.49/2011 under sections 147,148, 448, 324 r/w 149

IPC and issued FIR marking copies to all and took up investigation.

4. During course of the investigation he examined and

recorded the statement of PW.1 visited Govt.Area Hospital, Gadwal and

found the injured PWs 2,4,7 and 13 shifted to GGH, Kurnool. On

 3

20.6.2011 he visited the scene of offence which is the house bearing

No.6-108 belonging to PW.4 and conducted scene of offence

panchanama drawing sketch of scene in the presence of mediators

Telugu Eashwaranna and Madduri Anjaneyulu/PWs 9 and 14. On

21.06.2011 he visited GGH, Kurnool examined and recorded the

statements of injured PWs 2 to 4 and 7 and then once again visited

Peddapaally village and there securing the presence of Telugu Chinna

Ramudu, Alwala Rajashekar Reddy and Telugu Pedda Ramudu/PWs 5,6

and 12 examined and recorded their statements. Basing on the

evidence collected section of law was altered from Section 448 to 452

IPC adding section 307 IPC on 21.06.2011. On 28.06.2011 on reliable

information at 0630 hours he rushed to Peddapally village

apprehended A1 to A6 at the house of A1 and interrogated them in the

presence of mediators Uppari Srinivasulu and Uppari Shivanna/PWs 10

and 11. During their interrogation A1 to A4 confessed their guilt and in

pursuance of their confession one stick, Iron rod and two cart pegs are

recovered at their behest and seized the same under cover of separate

panchanamas in the house of A1. On completion of formalities they

were taken to Maldakal PS and arrested them explaining the grounds of

arrest and sent for judicial remand.

5. On 1.07.2011 one again visited GGH, Kurnool examined

and recorded the statement of other injured/PW.13 and collected the

wound certificate of injured from Dr.Kishore, CAS, Govt.Area Hospital,

Gadwal/PW.8 who treated PWs 2 to 5 and 7. As per medical certificates

injuries sustained by PWs 2 to 4 and 13 are simple in nature and the

injuries sustained by PW.7 are grievous in nature.

6. Evidence collected established Telugu Ranganna deceased

in the case registered as case in crime No.50/2011 on same day as

counter to this case had illicit intimacy with Telugu Shankaramma wife

of PW.3 and used to visit her house openly causing insult to PW.3
 4

before the villagers. PWs 1 to 4, 7 and their other family members

warned Ranganna several times directing him not to visit the house of

PW.3 and to discontinue his intimacy but he did not care them. On that

score Ranganna bore grudge against PW.3 and his family members for

causing hindrance to his activities. On 19.06.2011 at about 1900

hours Ranganna while returning to house from bus stop in drunken

state on noticing PW.1 chit chatting with PWs 5,6 and 12 in front of the

house of one Seetharami Reddy located beside the house of PW.4

picked up quarrel with PW.1 and abused him in filthy language for

causing hindrance for his affair with the wife of PW.3 and the same was

witnessed by PWs 2 to 4 who are very much present near by the house

of PW.4, then they all formed into an unlawful assembly armed with

sticks caught hold Ranganna at the house of PW.4 attacked and beat

him due to which he sustained head injuries. On intervention of A3 he

was also beaten. Later Ranganna died on the next day while

undergoing treatment at GGH, Kurnool. Having learnt about the

attack A1 to A6 formed themselves into an un lawful assembly armed

with sticks, iron rods and cart pegs preparing to do away PW.1 and on

the same day at about 1950 hours entered into the house of PW.4 and

attacked PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 13 to kill them. Thus A1 to A6 have

committed the offence punishable under sections 147,148, 452, 307,

306 r/w 149 IPC.

7. On appearance of accused having heard them and learned

P.P and on perusal of material on record charges framed against A1 to

A6 under sections 148, 452, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC by Assistant

Sessions Judge, Gadwal before the case is withdrawn and made over to

this court for simultaneous disposal along with SC 601/2011 under

section 228 Cr.P.C read over and explained to them in telugu. They

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

 5

8. On behalf of prosecution PWs 1 to 15 examined and Exs P1

to P28 and MOs 1 to 4 marked.

9. On closure of prosecution side evidence accused were

examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty denying

the incriminatory evidence spoken against them. On their behalf no

defence witnesses examined Contradictions elicited during cross

examination of PW.1 to 4, 6,7 and 13 are marked as Exs D1 to D21.

10. PW.1 is defacto complainant, PWs 2 to 4, 7 and 13 are

injured, PWs 5,6 and 12 are eye witnesses to the occurrence, PWs 9

and 14 are panch witnesses for scene of offence, PWs 10 and 11 are

mediators for arrest of accused, confession and recovery of MOs, PW.8

is Medical Officer who treated the injured, PW.15 is the then SI of

Police, Maldakal who registered and investigated the case.

11. Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW.1, Ex.P2 is wound

certificate of PW.2, Exs P2 to P6 are wound certificates of PWs 2 to 4, 7

and 13, Exs P7 and 17 are signatures of PW.9 on crime details form,

confession and seizure panchanamas of A1 to A4, Exs P8 to P15 are

signatures of PWs 10 and 11 on arrest, confession and seizure

panchanamas, Ex.P18 is crime details form, Ex.P19 is charge sheet

filed in crime No.50/2011, Ex.P20 is alternation Memo of FIR, Exs.P21

to 24 are panchanamas prepared on seizure of MOs 1 to 4, Exs P25 to

28 are relevant portions of confessions. MOs 1 to 4 are sticks, iron rods

and cart pegs.

12. Exs D1 to D4 are contradictions elicited during cross

examination of PW.1, Ex.D5 is contradiction elicited during cross

examination of PW.2, Exs D6 to D10 are contractions elicited during

cross examination of PW.3, Exs D11 to D14 are contradictions elicited

during cross examination of PW.4, Exs D15 and D16 are contradictions

elicited during cross examination of PW.7, Exs D17 and D18 are

contradictions elicited during cross examination of PW.6, Ex.D19 and

 6

D20 are contradictions elicited during cross examination of PW.13,

Ex.D21 is contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.4.

13. Now the Point for consideration is:-

Whether prosecution has made out the case against accused 1 to

6 for the offences under sections 148,452, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149

IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

14.POINT:-

In order to prove the case of prosecution mainly relied on

the evidence of PWs 1 to 4,7 and 13 defacto complainant and injured

and PWs 5,6,12 testified as eye witnesses to the occurrence apart

from the evidence of medical and investigation Officers testified as

PWs 8 and 15.

15. PW.1 defacto complainant and also victim without visible

injuries deposed on the date of occurrence i.e., 19.6.2011 at about 7

PM while he was chit chatting with PWs 5,6 and 12 Ranganna deceased

in SC No.601/2011 was seen coming in intoxicated condition from bus

stand side. In view of previous enmity in between him and said

Ranganna PW.6 advised him to go home apprehending altercation in

between them and immediately he left that place and went to the

house of his maternal uncle Chinna Ramudu/PW.4. He further deposed

within half an hour thereafter Ranganna came upon the house of his

uncle PW.4 along with A1 to A6 armed with sticks and iron rods beat

him PWs 2 to 4, 7 and 13 indiscriminately to kill them. He further

deposed then he came out shouting and on hearing his shoutings PWs

5,6 and 12 came to their rescue and intervened, then separating the

accused from them securing ambulance shifted injured to Area

Hospital, Gadwal at about 8 PM. On medical advice some of the

injured were referred to GGH, Kurnool for better treatment on same

night at about 8.30 PM. He further deposed as he did not receive

severe injuries he was not referred to GGH, Kurnool. Himself and his
 7

relatives rushed to Maldakal PS from Govt.Area Hospital, Gadwal and

given complaint, Police examined and recorded his statement.

15. PW.2 deposed on 19.6.2011 at about 7.30 PM himself and

his parents PWs 4,7 and brothers PW.13 and Ravi not cited as witness

were in their house PW.1 came to his house and within half an hour

thereafter A1 to A6 came to his house and attacked them with cart

pegs and iron rods indiscriminately to kill them due to previous enmity.

He further deposed immediately PW.1 rushed out of the house shouting

and on hearing his shoutings PWs 5,6 and 12 came to their rescue and

separating them from the hands of accused they were shifted to Area

hospital, Gadwal in an ambulance in between 8 PM and 8.30 PM and on

the same night they were referred to GGH, Kurnool for better treatment

and his examination by Police at Kurnool two days thereafter. He

further deposed he received injuries on left side of his forehead. His

right hand finger was also fractured and further he was beaten by A1

to A6 all over his body with iron rods and sticks. A3 was armed with

iron rods and others were armed with sticks.

16. Ex.P2 is his wound certificate. It reveals a laceration over

forehead 4 X 0.5 X 0.5 cms 2) contusion of 10 X 1 cms on back of the

chest and both injuries are simple in nature as per the evidence of

PW.8/Medical Officer.

17. PW.3 deposed on the date of occurrence at about 7.30/8

PM while he was in the house of his brother PW.4 PW.1 came and joined

him and within 10 minutes thereafter A1 to A6 and

Ranganna(deceased) in SC No.601/2011 came and among them A1 to

A3, A6 were armed with sticks and A2 was armed with iron rod and

attacked him, his brother, sister-in-law sons of his brothers PWs2,4,7

and 13 in which he sustained injury on forehead with sticks in the

hands of A1. He expressed his inability to specify the overt acts

against each of the accused stating they beat all of them as a group.
 8

He further deposed PW.1 rushed out of the house shouting and in

response to those shoutings PWs 1,5,6 and 12 came to their rescue

and shifted to Area Hospital, Gadwal securing an ambulance and from

there to GGH, Kurnool for better treatment. He further deposed that

his elder sister was given in marriage to A1 and that marriage became

strained on account of A1’s illegal demands and that matter was

referred to elders for panchayat about 15 years ago. In view of those

disputes they are not on talking terms with accused for the last 15

years.

17. Ex.P3 is his wound certificate. It reveals he sustained

laceration injury over forehead 1 X 0.5 X 0.5 CM which is simple in

nature as per the evidence of PW.8.

18. PW.4 deposed on the night of occurrence at about 7 PM

while he was in his house along with his wife, PWs 1,3 and 13, A1 to A6

and deceased Ranganna came upon his house beat him, PWs 1 to 3

and his wife PW.7 with sticks and iron rods. He was beaten by A1,

deceased Ranganna and other accused with iron rods and sticks. A2

was armed with iron rod and others are with sticks. He further

deposed immediately PW.1 rushed out of the house shouting and on

hearing his shoutings PWs 5,6 and 12 came and rescued and shifted to

Area hospital, Gadwal in an ambulance and then to GGH, Kurnool for

better treatment. He also deposed that his sister was given in

marriage to elder brother of A1 namely Kistanna and disputes arose

among them as A1 harassed her about 15 years ago and since then

they are not cordial with accused as motive for the occurrence. He

further deposed he received injuries to his hand and all over his body.

18. Ex.P4 is his wound certificate. As per Ex.P4 he sustained

fracture of left radius bone and abrasion of 5 X 1 CMs on his back.

Injury No.1 is grievous and injury No.2 is simple in nature as per the

evidence of PW.8.
 9

19. PW.7, wife of PW.4 deposed on the date of occurrence at

about 7 PM while she was in her house along with PWs 1 to 6 accused

came upon her house armed with sticks and iron rods beat her, PWs 1

to 4, and 13 with iron rods and sticks and she sustained head injury

and a contusion on left hand shoulder. PW.2 received head injury.

PW.1 received injury, PW.3 received injury on hand. Her husband/PW.4

sustained fracture to his left hand. PW.4 also received fracture injury.

PW.13 received head injury and he was in unconscious state for 10

days. Accused beat them due to previous enmity and they are not

cordial with accused for the last 15 years in view of disputes arose in

marital life of her sister-n-law given in marriage to elder brother of A1

and all accused are interrelated. She was taken to Area hospital,

Gadwal by PW.6 and other villagers.

19. Ex.P5 is her wound certificate. It reveals she sustained a

laceration on fore head of 4 X 1 X 0.5 CM which is simple in nature as

per the evidence of PW.8.

20. PW.13 deposed on the date of occurrence at about 7 PM

while she was in the house along with his parents, uncle, brothers and

cousins/PWs 1 to 4 and 7 all accused including Ranganna who is no

more and deceased in SC No.601/2011 trespassed into his house

armed with iron rods, sticks beat him and the persons referred above

with those weapons. He was beaten on his head by

Ranganna(deceased), A1 and A2 with iron rods and he received

bleeding injuries. He further deposed his brother, PW.2 was beaten on

his hand and head by A1 and A3, his father PW.4 was beaten on his left

forearm by A3 to A5 with sticks. They also beat PWs.1 and 3 his

cousin and uncle and on seeing the same PW.1 rushed out of the house

shouting and in response to those shoutings PWs 5,6 and 12 rushed

there and rescuing them from the hands of accused shifted to Area

hospital, Gadwal and from there to GGH, Kurnool for better treatment.
 10

Ranganna died two months after the occurrence died due to heavy

drinking on account of deterioration of his health. He further deposed

immediately after the occurrence he lost consciousness and regained it

11 days after the occurrence. He had disputes with accused for the

last several years and not cordial with them. Reason for the disputes

was strained relationship in between his paternal aunt Kistamma and

her husband none other than the elder brother of A1. He further

deposed his father intervened and held several panchayat for amicable

settlement but in vain and on the date of occurrence accused attacked

them with intention to kill.

21. Ex.P6 is his wound certificate. It reveals he sustained

laceration of 4 X 0.5 X 0.5 over forehead and a contusion of 10 X 1 CMs

on his back. Both are simple as per the evidence of PW.8/Medical

Officer.

22. PWs 5 and 6 testified as eye witnesses deposed on the

date of occurrence at about 7 PM while they were at the house of

Seetharam Reddy discussing their land affairs, PW.1 came and joined

them. Then noticing Ranganna deceased in counter case in SC

No.601/2011 coming on road shouting in intoxicated condition they

sent away PW.1 on account of earlier disputes among deceased and

PW.1 apprehending precipitation of things. They further deposed

Ranganna proceeded towards his house behind PW.1. Within 20

minutes thereafter they heard shoutings from the house of PW.4 and

observed PW.1 shouting outside the house of PW.4 and immediately

they rushed towards the house of PW.4 and seen all accused and

Ranganna(deceased) beating PWs 2 to 4,7 and 13 with sticks and iron

rods. They noticed PW.13 was in unconscious state, fracture of PW.4’s

left hand, PW.1 and others received simple injuries. Immediately they

intervened and on rescuing them shifted to Area Hospital, Gadwal for

 11

treatment and they returned to the village two days thereafter Police

enquired them about the occurrence.

22. PW.12 who is also testified as eye witness to the

occurrence turned hostile. He did not support the case of prosecution.

He disowned his examination by I.O. Declaring him hostile his

disowned 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P16. Except marking

disowned statement nothing is elicited to substantiate his presence at

the time of occurrence.

23. PWs 9 and 14 mediators for scene of offence panchanama,

PWs 10 and 11 mediators for confession and recoveries at the instance

of accused turned hostile admitting their signatures on crime details

form and confession cum seizure panchanamas. They are declared

hostile and cross examined but nothing is elicited except marking their

admitted signatures substantiating their knowledge as to those

proceedings. In the circumstances evidence of PWs 9 to 11 and 14 in

no way helpful to prosecution.

24. In order to prove the injuries received PWs 2 to 4,7 and 13.

PW.8 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Gadwal who treated the

injured PWs 2 to 4 and 7 is examined. He deposed on 19.6.2011 on

requisition given by SI of Police, Maldakal PS he examined PWs 2 to 4,

7 and 13 and issued Exs P2 to P6 wound certificates mentioning

injuries noted by him referred in the earlier part of discussion.

25. PW.15, the then SI of Police, Maldakal PS who registered

and investigated the case deposed on 19.6.2011 at 2100 hours he

received Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1 and issued Ex.P19 FIR under

sections 147,148,338, 324 r/w 149 IPC, then examined and recorded

the statement of PW.1. He further deposed immediately he proceeded

to scene of offence and by that time all the injured were taken to

hospital for treatment, then he rushed to Gadwal area hospital but by

the time he reached Gadwal injured were taken to GGH, Kurnool for
 12

better treatment. He further deposed as the situation was tense in the

village he also arranged picket in the village to maintain law and order.

25. He further deposed on the next day he conducted scene of

offence panchanama in the presence of PWs 9 and 14 preaparing

sketch of scene and crime details form. On 21.6.2011 he rushed to

GGH, Kurnool examined PWs 2 to 4 and 7 and recorded their

statements and then visited Pallepadu village and recorded statements

of PWs 5,6 and 12. He further deposed after recording the statements

he added sections 452 and 307 IPC to FIR and submitted Ex.P22

alternation memo of FIR. On 28.6.2011 he arrested A1 to A6 at the

house of A1 and on interrogation they confessed their guilt in the

presence of PWs 10 and 11 and at the behest of A1, A3 and A4 stick,

cart pegs and at the instance of A2 iron rod were recovered under

cover of separate seizure panchanamas marked as Exs P21 to P24.

Relevant portions of confessions are marked as Exs P25 to P28. Sticks

and rod are marked as MOs 1 to 4. Asserting examination of PW.12 he

deposed PW.12 had given statement before him as in Ex.P16 and his

investigation disclosed accused beat the deceased by forming

themselves into an unlawful assembly trespassing into the house of

PW.4 and made an attempt to do away them and charge sheeted all

accused.

26. Defence of accused is total denial. It is their consistent

case that this case is foisted as counter to crime No.50/2011

influencing the Police in anticipation of complaint from kith and kin of

deceased Ranganna and Srinivasulu victims in crime No.50/2011 and

PW.6 was instrumental for foisting case against them. PWs 1 to 4, 7

and 13 alleged injured are in the clutches of PW.6 and their evidence is

inconsistent and far from reality. Evidence spoken by them is with full

of improvements and contradictions and it is patent to a naked eye

that they are not truthful witnesses and not at all inclined to speak
 13

truth. PWs 5 and 6 testified as eye witnesses are closely associated.

PW.5 is follower of PW.6 the then Upasarpanch of peddapally village.

They are planted witnesses. From the evidence spoken by them it is

crystal clear that their house is not in the vicinity of scene of offence.

Evidence spoken by them is like a parrot story and far from reality.

27. Evidence of PW.8 Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Gadwal

and wound certificates marked as Exs P2 to P6 also throw doubt on

very genesis of the case of prosecution. If really accused herein along

with deceased Ranganna attacked deceased with sticks and iron rods

PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 13 would have sustained more severe injuries than

mentioned in Exs P2 to P6 wound certificates. Evidence spoken by the

injured is not corroborated with the medical evidence. As per Exs P2 to

P6 grievous injuries are sustained by PW.4 only that too a fracture on

left radius bone and the other injuries allegedly sustained by injured

are simple in nature and strangely the injuries sustained by them are

mostly uniform in nature and each of the victims allegedly received

two injuries Genuineness of Ex.P2 to P6 are to be doubted. Possibility

of causing such injuries due to fall cannot be ruled out. Medical

Officer/PW.8 also stated in his evidence about the treatment given by

him on the same night to A3 herein who is one of the victims in the

counter case SC 601/2011. He categorically stated in his evidence that

A3 herein sustained a fracture of 5 th meta carpal of right hand and

laceration over right arm. In fact he sustained those injuries when he

went to the rescue of his brother Ranganna deceased in SC 601/2011.

Death of deceased Ranganna with head injuries sustained by him on

19.6.2011 and his death on the next day morning at 8 AM while

undergoing treatment at GGH, Kurnool is duly proved in SC

No.601/2011. Prosecution witnesses examined in the case with an

ulterior motive even shirked to acknowledge death of Ranganna with

injuries on the next day morning by simply pleading ignorance. It is

 14

one of the strongest circumstances to doubt the very participation of

Ranganna and A3 herein who sustained injuries in the attack allegedly

made by trespassing into the house of PW.4 one of the injured in the

case. To prove grievous injuries sustained by PW.4 Radiologist was not

examined X-Ray reports are not filed.

28. Learned counsel for accused also relied on a decision of

Hon’ble High Court reported in 2002(1) ALD Criminal page 621

rendered in the case of Erlapalli Prakasham Vs., State of A.P for a

proposition in the absence of production of X-ray films and Radiologist

reports no value can be attached to the wound certificates and in such

case it cannot be said that prosecution proved the grievous injuries

sustained by PW.4 and at best it must be taken that the injured

sustained simple injuries and no case is made out against accused for

the offences under section 326 IPC.

29. Learned counsel for accused further contended accused

herein having attacked deceased Ranganna beat him severely and on

intervention of A3 none other than his brother he was also beaten by

them on 19.6.2011 at about 7 PM in front of the house of PW.4. Root

cause for the occurrence was suspicion of accused against

Ranganna/deceased in SC 601/2011 about his illicit intimacy with wife

of PW.3 none other than A3 in (SC 601/2011. To dilute and water down

the motive for the occurrence which was also stated by all the

prosecution witnesses during their examination by I.O went to an

extent of contradicting the very statements made by them and

relevant portions are also marked in D series. During trial for the first

time though it is alleged relationship in between accused and PWs was

strained 15 years ago on account of disputes in the marital life of A1’s

brother and his wife none other than the sister of PW.3 who is A3 in SC

601/2011. In the circumstances it can be safely said and concluded

that the prosecution failed to make out the case against accused for
 15

the offences with which they are charged and this case is foisted as

counter to crime No.50//2011(SC No.601/2011).

30. Evidence of PW.15/Investigation Officer also proved that

the accused in SC 601/2011 who are prosecution witnesses in this case

are aggressors. Inconsistent and unbelievable evidence of prosecution

witnesses coupled with the contradictions elicited during cross

examination of PWs 1 to 4,6,7 and 13 marked as Exs D1 to D21 ruled

out the case of prosecution that the accused trespassed into the house

of PW.4 and beat PW.1 and others.

31. Learned P.P contended that the prosecution has duly made

out the case against accused. Evidence spoken by the material

witnesses who are inured and eye witnesses duly proved that the

accused trespassed into the house of PW.4 and made attempt to kill

them. Evidence spoken by them also proved that the accused caused

injuries to victims by using sticks and iron rods which are deadly

weapons seized at the behest of accused on their apprehension in

pursuance of confession made. Thus prosecution duly made out the

case against all the accused and prayed for conviction of accused.

31. PWs 1 to 4,7 and 13 who are injured and PWs 5 and 6

testified as eye witnesses to the occurrence are cross examined at

length and during cross examination several contradictions are elicited

and they are marked as Exs D1 to D21.

32. In Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW.1 at the first instance at

2100 hours it is stated Ranganna deceased in SC No.601/2011 on

noticing him with PWs 5 and 6 picked up altercation with him due to

old enmity while returning from bus stand in front of the house of

Seetharam Reddy and immediately he left that place and rushed into

the house of his uncle/PW.4 for shelter and after some time A1 to A6

along with deceased Ranganna armed with sticks and iron rods

trespassed into the house of PW.4 and indiscriminately beat him and
 16

other injured. He also stated on account of previous enmity specifying

the reason for the enmity as illicit intimacy with Shankaramma and

warning given to him directing not to visit the house of Shankaramma

and continuation of illicit intimacy by him in spite of their protest”.

33. During trial he deposed on the date of occurrence at 7 PM

while he was with PWs 5,6 and 12 deceased Ranganna on noticing him

started abusing him as “LANJAKODUKULLARA MEE CHINNAMMANU

DENGUTHUNNA IKA MEE PELLALANU DENGUTHANU RANDIRA” then

PW.6 the then Upasarpanch of the village intervened to separate them.

Meanwhile PWs 2 to 4, 13 and Ravi who are in front of the house of

PW.4 rushed and taken Ranganna towards the house of PW.4 and beat,

meanwhile accused 1 to 6 came with iron rods and sticks and on

seeing them they all rushed into the house of PW.4, then accused

trespassing into the house of PW.4 attacked all of them indiscriminately

but he escaped from the house by scaling down the back side house

wall of PW.4. PWs 2 to 4,7 and one Ravi who is not even cited as

witness on behalf of prosecution received injuries, then PWs 5,6,12 and

some others came and sent away the accused and shifted the injured

in 108 ambulance to Area Hospital, Gadwal.

33. Evidence spoken by PW.1 is quite contrary to Ex.P1

complaint and his 161 Cr.P.C statement. During his evidence he had

not stated that route cause for the occurrence as illicit intimacy in

between Shankaramma and deceased Ranganna and disputes arose on

that score. On the other hand during his cross examination he

categorically denied illicit intimacy in between Shankaramma and

Ranganna and further added no possibility to suspect any illicit

intimacy in between Ranganna and Shankaramma as Shankaramma

was cousin sister to Ranganna as sister of PW.3 was given in marriage

to A1’s brother. For the first time during his evidence he stated that

route cause for the disputes in between his family and family of
 17

accused was strained relationship in marital life of A1’s brother and

PW.3’s sister. In his 161 Cr.P.C statement there is no whisper about it.

34. As per his 161 Cr.P.C statement incident complained under

Ex.P1 was commenced in front of the house of PW.6 and it ended in the

house of PW.4 in three stages e.g., Firstly, Ranganna picked up

altercation by abusing him in filthy language, Secondly, PWS 2 to 4 and

others joined and dragged Ranganna towards the house of PW.4 and

also beat him in front of the house of PW.4 in open place and lastly, on

arrival of accused including Ranganna who was already beaten chased

them with iron rods and sticks and on their escape from there in the

house of PW.4 accused and Ranganna trespassed into the house of

PW.4 and severely beaten them.

35. PW.1 for the first time deposed on seeing Ranganna

coming from bus stand side in intoxicated condition in view of previous

disputes in between deceased and PW.1 PW.6 apprehending altercation

once again in between deceased and PW.1 advised him to go away,

then immediately obliging him rushed into the house of PW.4 and took

shelter there. After sometime all accused including Ranganna armed

with iron rods and sticks trespassed into the house of PW.4 and beat all

of them indiscriminately. He was also beaten but he did not receive

any visible bleeding injuries. He further deposed he rushed out of

house of PW.4 shouting and in response to his shoutings PWS 5,6 and

12 came and rescued. As per the evidence entire occurrence took

place only in the house of PW.4 and nothing had happened either in

front of the houses of PW.6 or PW.4. The inconsistencies and material

omissions elicited during cross examination of PW.1 are marked as Exs

D1 to D4.

35. PWs 2 to 4,7 and 12 injured in the case also deposed

during their chief in same lines as spoken by PW.1 and before the I.O

while giving statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. During their cross
 18

examination they also went to extent of denying illicit intimacy in

between Shankaramma and Ranganna which is the route cause for the

occurrence. They also stated that the route cause for the occurrence

was strained relationship in marital life of PW.3’s sister and A1’s

brother which has no basis. Their evidence is also quite contrary to

their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Material omissions and contradictions

elicited during their cross examination are marked as Exs D5 to D16

and D19 to D21.

36. PW.6, testified as eye witness also deposed during his chief

in same lines as spoken by PW.1 as if nothing had happened in front of

the house of Seetharam Reddy or PW.4. For the first time he deposed

he advised PW.1 to go away in anticipation of altercation in between

deceased and PW.1 on noticing his presence on the road passing in

front of the house of Seetharam Reddy while he was talking with PWs

1,5 and 12 denying disputes in between the families of PW.1 and

Ranganna on the score of illicit intimacy in between Ranganna and

Shankaramma. Material omissions and contradictions elicited during

his cross examination are also marked as Exs D11 to d14.

37. PWs 2 to 4,7 and 13 went to an extent of denying the

correctness of contradictory statements given by them during their

cross examination by I.O examined as PW.15. PW.15 has no enimity or

ill will towards any of the prosecution witnesses. During his

examination he asserted the correctness of the statements given by

PWs 1 to 4,7 and 13 marked as Exs D1 to D21.

38. Ravi whose name is also referred as injured in occurrence

by the prosecution witnesses in the statements made by them before

PW.15 is neither cited as witness nor produced any evidence in proof of

injuries sustained by him. As per the evidence of PW.8/Medical Officer

who treated the injured and issued Exs P2,P3,P5 and P6 all the injuries

sustained by PWS 2,3,7 and 13 are simple lacerations and contusions.

 19

PW.4 alone sustained a fracture injury to left radius bone besides an

abrasion on her back. Evidence spoken by PW.13 who received only

laceration on forehead and contusion on the back of chest that he lost

consciousness and took treatment for those two simple injuries as

inpatient for over a period of 10 days in Govt.General Hospital, Kurnool

is clear exaggeration. PW.15 recorded his statement 10 days after the

occurrence No explanation for his belated examination. PWs 2,3 and 7

who sustained simple injuries were examined two days after the

occurrence allegedly in Govt.hospital, Kurnool. In the light of wound

certificates evidence spoken by them that they were treated as in

patients in GGH, Kurnool even for one day is far from reality. Except

PW.4 none of them sustained any grievous or fractured injuries.

Strangely all the accused received uniformly two injuries of almost

same dimensions each. As spoken by PWs 1 to 4,7 and 13 if really

accused attacked them with iron rods and sticks they would have

sustained multiple injuries and possibility of causing causalities also

cannot be ruled out. From the evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 4, 7 and

13 and the complaint lodged by PW.1 under Ex.P1 against accused

even including the name of Ranganna who was severely injured and

his brother A3 who also received injuries on his intervention to rescue

Ranganna and contradictions elicited during their cross examination

throw doubt on very genesis of case of prosecution.

39. During cross examination of PWs 2,7 it is also elicited

Ranganna was not present along with accused when they were

allegedly attacked. Admission of absence of Ranganna at the time of

alleged occurrence by them give strength to the defence of accused

that they are falsely implicated in the case in anticipation of

registration of crime against prosecution witnesses more particularly

PW 1 and others arrayed as accused in SC No.601/2011 on evil advise

of PW.6 the then Upa Sarpanch of Peddapally village for their

 20

highhandedness towards Ranganna, brother of A1,A2, A4 father of

A5,A6 and A3 herein on his intervention to rescue Ranganna PW.12,

none other than brother of PW.5 testified as eye witness did not

support the case of prosecution. He disowned his knowledge about the

occurrence denying his presence there. PWs 5,6 and 12 are also cited

as prosecution witnesses in connected case SC No.601/2011. All of

them turned hostile in that case and pleaded their ignorance about the

occurrence. Even on plain reading of the complaint lodged in both

cases it can be safely concluded that PWs 5,6 and 12 are present in the

vicinity of scene of offence throughout the occurrence. Conduct of PWs

5 and 6 in turning hostile in connected case SC No.601/2011 denying

their presence in the vicinity of scene of offence and giving evidence in

support of prosecution in the facts and circumstances creating doubt

upon their trustworthiness and bonafides. It is admitted case of both

parties before commencement of the occurrence complained PW.1 was

chit chatting with PWs 5,6 and 12 in front of the house of Seetharam

Reddy. If that was not there no possibility any of occurring of the

incidents complained.

40. Admittedly houses of PWs 5,6 are not in the vicinity of

scene of offence and their houses are away from scene of offence.

Evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 12 that PW.1 came out of the

house of PW.4 shouting and in response to those shoutings PWS 5,6

and 12 rushed to their recue is quite inconsistent with the statement

given by him before the investigation officer and it is far from reality.

No possibility of hearing shoutings of PW.1 by PWs 5 and 6 if they are

not in the vicinity of scene of offence. Their conduct in giving evidence

in support of PWs 2 to 4,7 and 12 speaks volumes. From the material

on record it is also manifest that PW.6 is leader of one group and PW.1

is in his group. PW.6 is accused in SC NO.74/2009. He was defacto

complainant in SC No.346/2008 lodged for death of one Srinivasulu

 21

none other than brother of PW.1 in the case. On plain reading of FIR in

SC No.346/2008 it is patent he was instrumental for the incident

complained in that case. He is not truthful witness and not at all safe

to rely on his evidence. In the light of inconsistent versions given by

PWs 2 to 4 and 13 which is with full of exaggerations and

contradictions coupled with uniformity in number and nature of injuries

mentioned in Exs P2 to P6 it is not safe to rely on their evidence.

Evidence spoken by PW.8/Medical Officer also throws doubt on

genuineness of Exs P2 to P8. Overt acts attributed to accused in the

evidence of PWs 2 to 4,7 and 13 are also inconsistent with the

statements made by them before PW.15 and Medical evidence is not

corroborated with ocular evidence.

41. On combined reading of material placed and evidence let

in by the prosecution in this case and the case SC No.601/2011 said to

be counter to this case can be safely concluded this case is foisted

against accused by PW.1 and others to cover up their highhandedness

towards deceased in SC No.601/2011 and his brother Srinivasulu A3 in

the case having beat them indiscriminately leading to death of

Ranganna in anticipation of complaint against them. From the

evidence let in by prosectuion it can be safely said that deceased was

firstly beaten by PW.1 and others indiscriminately and then they also

bet A3 on his intervention and the said incident occurred in front of the

house of PW.4 herein which is beside the house of Seetharam Reddy.

Ex.P18 crime details form is brought into existence only by PW.15 only

to suit the case of prosecution. Even mediators allegedly present

during scene of offence panchanama did not support Ex.P18 and its

contents. They simply stated that their signatures were taken by

Police on some written papers without giving any cogent explanation

for doing so.

 22

42. The very evidence spoken by PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 13 which is

quite inconsistent with the statements made by them during

investigation falsified the correctness of Ex.P18. To give colour of

reality in Ex.P18 sketch red markings were also given as if prosecution

witnesses received bleeding injuries. In fact none of the prosecution

witnesses sustained bleeding injuries as per Exs P2 to P6. On careful

scrutiny of the evidence let in, in both cases it is manifest Ranganna

deceased in SC No.601/2011 was beaten on his head causing breakage

of head and skull which ultimately led to his death and he alone

sustained injuries but for one reason or other no blood marks were

shown by PW.15 who prepared rough sketch of scene of offence in that

case in SC No.601/2011. It may be either on account of disturbance of

scene of offence by the time of PW.15’s visit by PW.1 and others or for

other reasons known to PW.15 alone taking advantage of presence of

all accused attending on Ranganna in GGH, Kurnool to save his life. In

the facts and circumstances it can also be safely said PW.1 and others

attacked Ranganna to eliminate him when his brothers are away from

the village by catching him alone but to their misfortune his wife,

mother and his only brother A3 present in village rushed to the scene

otherwise his death would have been mystery.

43. Evidence spoken by of prosecution witnesses that the case

SC No.601/2011 is foisted as counter to this case is not at all

convincing. Merely on the ground that the defacto complainant in

crime No.50/2011 lodged complaint 3 hours after registration of this

crime and this crime was registered earlier contents of Ex.P1

complaint cannot be presumed to be gospel truth. PW.1 who was very

much present in the village throughout lodged complaint earlier

having rushed to Maldakal PS. Whereas defacto complainant and her

other sons held up in GGH, Kurnool lodged complaint 3 hours after the

registration of this case. No ingredients of sections 148, 452, 307, 324,

 23

326 r/w 149 IPC. Hence it is not desirable to invoke any of the penal

sections with which accused Nos 1 to 6 are charged.

44. The very evidence spoken by PWs 2 to 4, 7 and 13 that the

accused 1,2, 4 to 6 along with A3 who was also injured in the hands of

A1 and others came along with Ranganna who were severely injured

and on death bed by the time of occurrence trespassed into the house

of PW.4 and beat them indiscriminately with iron rods and sticks is a

myth and it is a false case foisted against accused to dictate terms to

accused herein and to water down the case registered against them for

causing death of Ranganna and injuries to his brother Srinivasulu.

In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty of the offences

punishable under sections 148, 452, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 IPC and

they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C of the above said

offences. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period

of six months from today as contemplated U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C MOs 1

to 4 and other unmarked properties if any are ordered to be destroyed

on expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Steno-Typist after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of October, 2014.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,

Gadwal
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for
PROSECUTION DEFENCE:
PW.1 Telugu Gopal
PW.2 Telugu Rajavardhan
PW.3 Chinna Laxmanna
PW.4 Telugu Chinna Ramulu
PW.5 Telugu Chinna Ramudu
PW.6 Alwala Rajashekhar Reddy
PW.7 Smt.Telugu Jayamma
PW.8 Dr.K.Kishore Kumar, CAS
PW.9 Telugu Eshwaranna
PW.10 Uppari Srinivasulu
PW.11 Uppari Shivanna
PW.12 Telugu Pedda Ramudu
PW.13 Telugu Raghu
PW.14 M.Anjaneyulu
PW.15 Syed Farad Hussain, SI
 24

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint given by PW.1, Ex.P2 is wound certificate of
PW.2
ExsP2toP6 Wound certificates of PWs 2 to 4, 7 and 13
Exs.P7&17 Signature of PW.9 on crime details form, confession and
seizure panchanama of A1 to A4,
Exs.P8toP15 Signatures of PWs 10 and 11 are on arrest, confession and
seizure panchanamas
Ex.P16 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.12
Ex.P18 Crime details form
Ex.P19 Charge sheet filed in crime No.50/2011
Ex.P20 Alternation Memo of FIR, Ex.P21 to 24 are panchanamas
prepared on seizure of MOs 1 to 4
ExsP25to 28 Relevant portions of confessions.

DEFENCE:-
Exs D1toD4 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.1
Ex.D5 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.2
Exs D6toD10 Contraction elicited during cross examination of PW.3
ExsD11toD14 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.4
ExsD15&D1 contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.7
ExsD17&D18 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.6
Ex.D19&D20 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.13
Ex.D21 Contradiction elicited during cross examination of PW.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO-1 to 4 Sticks, iron rods and cart pegs.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge,

Gadwal.