1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: Sri CH. V.N. SRINIVASA RAO,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHILAKALURIPET,

Thursday, this the 15th day of September, 2016

C.C. No. 285 of 2015

BETWEEN:
State: Sub Inspector of Police,
Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. Complainant

And

1. Bathineni Anantha Lakshmi @ Anitha,

D/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
26 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.,

2. Bathineni Sunitha,
D/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
23 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.,

3. Bathineni Srilaxmi @ Seenamma (died)

W/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,

4. Bathineni Siva Sankar @ Siva,

S/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
22 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet., .... Accused

This case was coming on 12.09.2016 before me for final hearing in the
presence of A.P.P. for the State and Mr. K. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the
accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court
delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

A.1 is tried for the offence under Section 326 IPC and A.2 and A.4 are
tried for the offence under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC and againsnt A.1, A.2 and
A.4 for the offence U/s.323 IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to file charge sheet are as follows:

The accused are residents of Purushothapatnam, Chilakaluripet and

 2

previously there are misunderstandings between Bathineni Kusuma Kumari

(LW1) and the accused; that Bathineni Kusuma Kumari (LW1) begot two sons
and one daughter; that after performing the marriages of all the children,
Bathineni Kusuma Kumari (LW1) is alone staying in Purushotapatnam,
Chilakaluripet. On 25.01.2014, at 06.00 p.m. Bathineni Kusuma Kumari
(LW1) went to Sivalayam temple and asked the electrician to arrange
inverter at the temple and around 07.00 p.m. when she reached infront of
her house, A1 to A4 suddenly went upon her and A3 caught hold of her tuft
of hair, A1 and A2 beat over her back and stomach; A1 beat over her both
hands especially over left palm and wrist with a stout stick and caused
injuries; A2 caught hold of her throat and squeezed; A3 beat over her face
indiscriminately with a chappal and on hearing the cries of Bathineni Kusuma
Kumari (LW1), Bathineni Laxmi Devi (LW4) rushed to the spot and asked the
accused to leave but they turned against Kusuma Kumari and kicked
Bathineni Kusuma Kumari (LW1) with legs; A1 and A2 further beat on the
face of Kusuma Kumari; A4 kicked on Kusuma Kumari face and throat and at
that time, Bathineni Naga Lakshmi (LW2) and others pleaded the accused
not to beat but A4 pushed Bathineni Naga Lakshmi (LW2) and later left the
place challenging to do whatever she likes. Later around 11.00 p.m.
Bathineni Murali Krishna (LW3) came to Chilakaluripet and shifted Bathineni
Kusuma Kumari (LW1) for treatment to CHC, Chilakaluripet and on receipt of
hospital intimation, K. Satish Babu (LW10), HC of Chilakaluripet Town P.S.
came and recorded the statement of Bathineni Kusuma Kumari (LW1) and
the S.I. of Police (LW11) registered the same as case in Cr. No.27/2014,
U/s.324, 384 R/w.34 of IPC and during the course of investigation, LW11
examined LWs 1 to 8 and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of
offence and prepared rough sketch and later deleted section 384 of IPC and
arrested A1 to A4 on 29.01.2014 and sent them for remand and LW9 who
treated Bathineni Kusuma Kumari (LW1) issued wound certificate opining
that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and as such, the S.I. of Police added
Sec.326 of IPC and after completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused before the AJCJ court,

Chilakaluripet, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused
persons in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and numbered the same as C.C.
No. 134/2014.
 3

4. The AJCJ Court, Chilakaluripet examined the accused persons

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C for the accusation levelled against them in the charge
sheet, for which, they denied the same. Upon considering the material
placed before the AJCJ court by the prosecution and upon hearing the Asst.
Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused, the
AJCJ court was of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the
accused have committed the offences U/s.323 and 326 R/w.34 of IPC, framed
charges for the offence U/s.323 against A.1 to A.4 and against A.1 for the
offence under Section 326 IPC and againt A.2 to A.4 for the offence under
Section 326 R/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for
which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. The case on hand was
transferred to this Court from the Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court as per
the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Court, Guntur dtd.28.09.2015 vide
Dis.No.6801 and this Court received the record in Dis.No.1142,
dtd.12.10.2015 and re-numbered the same as C.C. No.285/2015. Pendente
lite the case, A.3 died and as such the cast against A.3 is abated.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws 1 to

9 are examined and Exs.P1 to P6 are marked and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked
on behalf of the accused.

6. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused

No.1, 2 and 4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, for incriminating evidence
appearing against them in the testimonies of the prosecution side witnesses
and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the
accused side evidence is closed.

7. On the strength of the above, the point to be determined is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A1 for the
offence U/s.326 of IPC, against A2 and A4 for the offence U/s.326 R/w.34 of
IPC and against A1, A2 and A4 for the offence U/s.323 of IPC beyond
reasonable doubt?

8. Heard both the sides.

9. POINT:
 4

i)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the house
of PW1 is located opposite to Sai Baba temple in Purushothapatnam,
Chilakaluripet; that PW1 has two sons and one daughter and among two
sons, one son is residing in Guntur and PW1 stayed for about 1 month in the
house of his son i.e. PW3 prior to the incident. He has further contended
that in the morning hours on 24.01.2014, PW1 came to Chilakaluripet along
with her daughter-in-law i.e., P.W.2 and that on 25.01.2014, at about 06.00
p.m. she went to Sivalayam temple to fix inverter and after completion of it,
while she was coming to home and on reaching in front of her house at
07.00 p.m., A1 to A4 came upon her, A1 and A2 caught hold of her tuft of
hair and A1 pushed PW1 and beat with sticks and also beat with chappals.
He has further contended that A2 also fisted on the back of PW1 and that A4
beat with chappals on the face of PW1 and that A1 sat on the chest and
fisted her on her chest and also on her face and caused simple and grievous
injuries. He has further contended that at the time of incident, the
neighbours gathered but all the accused threatened that they intended to kill
PW1 and at that time, PW2 interefered and she too was pushed away and
subsequently she extricated PW1 from the hands of A1 and went to home
and made phone call to PW3, who came and took P.W.1 to Government
Hospital, Chilakaluripet and on the next day, Police came to the hospital and
recorded the statement of P.W.1. He has further contended that the
evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidences of PWs 2 and 6. He has
further contended that taking away PW1 to the hospital is well corroborated
by examining PW3. He has further contended that the evidence of PW1 that
she was beaten with sticks is corroborated by the evidence of PW5 also and
the injuries as sustained by PW1 is well proved by examining the doctor PW7
and the same is well corroborated by Ex.P3 wound certificate. He has
further contended that except some discrepancies as to time of examining
the witnesses by the Police, nothing worthwhile material is elicited to
disprove the case of the prosecution. He has further contended that even
though PW4 turned hostile, the other evidences are consistent through-out.
He has further contended that as PW1 asked the accused persons about
selling coconuts in front of her house, all the accused bore grudge against
PW1 and beat her in black and blue with sticks and hands without seeing her
age more than 60 years old. He has further contended that the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 is liable to be convicted for the
 5

offence U/s.326 of IPC and A2 and A4 are liable to be convicted for the
offence U/s.326 R/w.34 of IPC and all the accused are liable to be convicted
for the offence U/s.323 of IPC.

ii) Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has contended
that the accused are falsely implicated in this case and they did not commit
any offence. He has further contended that no motive for the offence is
attributed against the accused for committing the offence, which is sufficient
to acquit the accused. He has further contended that as per Ex.P1
statement, PW1 gave statement at 11.45 a.m. whereas as per the cross-
examination of PW1, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur at
09.00 a.m. itself and this inconsistency is sufficient to dis-believe the case of
the prosecution. He has further contended that PW2 did not accompany
PW1 to Chilakaluripet from Guntur but PW2 stated that she came to
Chilakaluripet along with PW1. He has further contended that as per the
examination-in-chief of PW2, PW3 came to Chilakaluripet at 11.00 p.m.
whereas as per the examination-in-chief of PW3, he came to Chilakaluripet at
19.30 hrs and as such the time as to arrival of PW3 to Chilakaluripet is
inconsistent with the evidence of PW1 and as such it is nothing but planting
the witness only to drag the accused into the case. He has further contended
that as per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place on
25.01.2014 but PW1 gave statement to the police on 26.01.2014 and as
such question of examining PWs 5 and 6 by the police on the date of alleged
incident i.e. on 25.01.2016 does not arise at all and as such the evidence of
PWs 5 and 6 cannot be taken into consideration and they can be discarded.
He has further contended that the Doctor did not mention in Ex.P3 wound
certificate about the age of the injuries and as such the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

iii) To bring home the guilt of accused NO.1 for the offence U/s.326
of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that A1 caused grievous injury to PW1
with dangerous weapon or means.
iv) To bring home the guilt of A.2, and A.4 for
the offence U/s.326 R/w.34 of IPC, the prosecution shall prove that A1 caused
grievous injury with dangerous weapon or means with the common intention
of A2 and A4.
 6

v) To prove the offence U/s.323 of IPC against

A.1, A.2 and A.4, the prosecution shall prove that all the accused caused
simple injury to PW1 with hands and legs.

vi) All the above said offences are taken up together for common
determination to avoid repetition of discussion.

vii) Injuries:-
a) To prove the simple and grievous injuries sustained by
PW1, the prosecution in all examined PWs 1 to 9. According to the case of
the prosecution, PW1 is the informant and injured; PW2 is none-else than
the daughter-in-law of PW1 and she is also eye witness; PW3 is the son of
PW1 who is also eye witness to the injuries; that PWs 4 to 6 are the eye
witnesses, PW7 is the Doctor, PW8 is the Police official, who recorded the
statement of PW1 and PW9 is the Investigating officer.

b) PW1 deposed that while she was coming to her home from
Sivalayam temple at 07.00 p.m.and on reaching in front of her house, A1 to
A4 came upon her, A1 caught hold her tuft of hair and pushed her on the
road and beat her with sticks on her back and also on her left palm and also
beat her with chappals. She further testified that A2 also caught hold of tuft
of her hair and fisted her on her back and A3 also fisted on her back and A4
beat her with chappal on her face. She further deposed that A1 sat on her
chest and fisted her on her chest and also on her face and also beat with
chappals and that she sustained injuries in the hands of the accused
persons.

c) PW2 deposed that all the accused beat PW1 and that her mother-
in-law was seriously injured from the accused and sustained fracture injury
to her left arm.
d) PW5 deposed that PW1 was beaten with sticks by A1 and the
remaining accused beat with hands and legs and that PW1 sustained
injuries.
e) PW6 also deposed that the accused beat PW1 with hands and
sticks.
f) A conjoint reading of the above said evidences, it seems that
 7

PW1 sustained fracture injury and also simple injuries and the evidences of
the above said witnesses are consistent through-out as to presence of
injuries on PW1. The ocular evidence of PW1 as to presence of injuries is well
corroborated by the evidence of PW7 who is Doctor, who deposed that on
26.01.2014 at about 10.20 p.m. he examined B. Kusuma Kumari and she
informed that she was beaten by known persons with stick, hands and legs
and found the following injuries:- 1) A contusion with haematoma of size
10x10 cm on left palm and wrist; 2) An abrasion of 2 x 2 cm on the right
forearm and 3) A contusion of size 1 x 1 cm with pain in left spleen region.
She further testified that she gave wound certificate on 29.01.2015 and she
was of the opinion that the above said that injury No.1 is grievous in nature
and it is caused by blunt object and injuries No.2 and 3 are simple in nature
and caused by blunt object and she issued wound certificate and the same is
marked as Ex.P3. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that
at the request of the police, she gave Ex.P3 and she did not give any
treatment to PW1. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW7, it seems
that it is not at all suggested by the learned counsel for the accused that
there are no injuries on PW1 as observed by PW7 and as deposed to by PW1.
In view of the above discussion, it manifests that the ocular evidence of PWs
1, 2 and 5 are well corroborated by the documentary evidence under Ex.P3
and as such the prosecution has successfully proved that PW1 sustained
grievous injury i.e. 1) A contusion with haematoma of size 10x10 cm on left
palm and wrist; 2) An abrasion of 2 x 2 cm on the right forearm and 3) A
contusion of size 1 x 1 cm with pain in left spleen region and that there is a
fracture in 4th and 5th metacarpal bone on left side of PW1.

viii) Whether the above said grievous injury was caused by the 1 st
accused with an intention of A2 and A4 and those simple injuries are caused
by A1, A2 and A4. Pendente lite the case, the 3rd accused died.

a) To prove the above said ingredients, PW1 deposed that her

house is located opposite to Sai Baba Temple at Purushothapatnam,
Chilakaluripet and her son is residing in Guntur and prior to the incident, she
stayed for about one month in the house of her son at Guntur and came
back to her house on 24.01.2014 in the morning hours along with her
daughter-in-law, her daughter-in-law Naga Lakshmi also came to her home.
 8

She further testified that she went to Sivalayam temple on the side of the
main road, Purushothapatnam on 25.01.2014 at 06.00 p.m. to fix the
inverter in the temple as the said temple is of her and after fixing of it, while
she was reaching in front of her house, A1 to A4 came up on her and beat
her indiscriminately. She further deposed that A1 caught-hold tuft of her hair
and pushed her on the road and beat her with sticks on her back and also on
her left plam and also beat her with chappals. She further testified that A2
also caught-hold of her tuft of her hair and fisted her on her back and A3 also
fisted on her back and A4 beat her with chappal on her face. She further
deposed that A1 sat on her chest and fisted on her chest and also on her
face. She further testified that the neighbours extricated her from the
accused and on hearing her cries, her daughter-in-law Naga Lakshmi came
out of the house and took her to the house. The evidence of PW1 is well
corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who testified that on hearing
commotions from outside in front of her house at 07.00 p.m. and witnessed
that A1 to A4 were beating her mother-in-law and while all the accused were
beating her mother-in-law, she tried to extricate her from the hands of the
accused persons and she too was pushed by the accused persons and even
then also she tried and succeeded to get her mother-in-law from their hands
and took her to the house. Even though PW2 is the daughter-in-law of PW1,
she cannot be branded as related witness and her evidence cannot be
brushed aside on that core relation and her evidence can be scrutinized very
carefully. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did
not come to Chilakaluripet to visit her mother-in-law on the date of incident.
The presence of PW2 at the scene of offence is well corroborated by the
evidence of PW6, who is the independent witness besides eye witness and
who testified that PW2 interfered and she too was pushed. On perusal of the
cross-examination of PW6, it seems that the very presence of PW2 at the
scene of offence has been unchallenged and as such it is crystal clear that
the presence of PW2 and witnessing the incident cannot be ruled-out as the
very presence of PW2 is consistent through-out and the same is well
corroborated by the evidence of PW6 also in addition to PW1 and PW3, who
is the husband of PW2 deposed that his wife PW2 was in Chilakaluripet on
the date of incident.

b) PW5 deposed that at about 2 years ago, at around 06.00 p.m.

 9

PW1 and A3 were quarreling with each other at the house of PW1 and the 1 st
accused beat PW1 with stick and the remaining accused beat PW1 with
hands and legs and the neighbours interfered and separated them and PW1
sustained injuries. In her cross-examination PW5 stated that the house of
PW1 is located opposite to Sai Baba temple and her house is located near
High school and there is a distance of km between her house and the
house of PW1 and it is not visible from her house and there is no possibility
of hearing cries from the house of PW1 to her house and PW1 is her cousin.
The above said elicitation would not create any doubt in the mind of the
court as to the very evidence of PW5 as it is not at all the evidence of PW5
that she witnessed the incident from her house and it is not at all suggested
in the cross-examinaiton of PW.5 that whether she witnessed the incident
from her house. P.W.5 simply deposed that she witnessed PW1 and the
accused were quarreling with each other at the house of PW1 and in such
circumstances, the above said elicitation in the cross-examination of P.W.5
would not come in aid of the defence of the accused or create any shadow of
doubt over the trustworthiness evidence of PW5 and as such it is crystal
clear that the evidence of PW5 is well corroborating the evidence of PW1.

c) PW6 also deposed that on 25.01.2014, she heard commotions

from outside and all the accused were beating PW1 with hands and also with
sticks and PW2 interfered and P.W.2 too was pushed and PW1 leaving the
place by stating that her gold chain was pulled away and went inside of her
house. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW6, it seems that she is
doing business of coconuts; that her house and the house of A1 is intervened
by the house of PW1. She denied the suggestion that there are disputes
between PW1 and the accused as to the coconuts business. Except putting
suggestion in the cross-examination of PW6, nothing has been placed before
this court by the accused that there are disputes between the accused and
PW1 or when the disputes arose and what was the exact reason for disputes
between PW1 and the accused and simply putting suggestion and
maintaining silence would not suffice to prove that there are disputes
between the accused persons and PW1 as to coconuts business and as such
the above said suggestion would not get any legal sanctity and that the
entire evidence of PW6 is consistent through-out.
d) PW1 testified in the cross-examination that on 26.01.2014, police
 10

came to the hospital and recorded her statement. PW8 also deposed that on
receipt of hospital intimation, he proceeded to CHC, Chilakaluripet on
26.01.2014 at 11.30 a.m. and recorded the statement of PW1 and as such
the examination-in-chief of PW3 that he lodged report with the police would
not carry any legal value. All the witnesses in their cross-examinations
stated that after one hour of the offence, police visited the place of offence.
The argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the
incident took place on 25.01.2014 but PW1 gave statement to the police on
26.01.2014 and as such question of examining PWs 5 and 6 by the police on
the date of alleged incident i.e. on 25.01.2016 does not arise, does not hold
any water as the said discrepancies cannot wash-off the entire evidences of
of P.Ws.5 and 6 as there is no inconsistency as to the very date, time and
witnessing the incident and it affects only as to the time of recording the
statement of Pws.5 and 6 by the police besides giving statement under
Ex.P.1 by P.W.1. The age of PW1 is 67 years and she gave evidence on
06.05.2016 and the alleged incident took place on 25.01.2014 and as such
there is a gap of nearly 2 years and also taking into consideration the age
of PW1, some discrepancies can be expected in regard to time and date of
offence from a truthful witness. PW1 stated in her cross-examination that
she did not state before the police that her daughter-in-law Naga Lakshmi
also accompanied her from Guntur to Chilakaluripet but Ex.P1 statement
shows that her daughter-in-law also accompanied to Chilakaluripet from
Guntur and as such the above said elicitation does not come against the
case of the prosecution. The consistent evidence of PW1 is corroborated by
the evidences of PWs 2, 5 and 6 and that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that A.1 with the common intention of A.2 and A.4 caused
grievous injury i.e., contusion with haematoma of size 10x10 cm on left
palm and wrist to P.W.1 with common intnetion and with dangerous weapon
i.e., stick; and all the accused caused simple injuries i.e., An abrasion of 2 x
2 cm on the right forearm and A contusion of size 1 x 1 cm with pain in left
spleen region to P.W.1 with hands and legs.

ix) Motive:-
The argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused that there is no motive as stated by PW1 in her report does not hold
any water as on perusal of Ex.P1 statement, it seems that PW1 has not at all
 11

stated about motive for the offence but It is well established in law that FIR
should contain the essential features of the prosecution case but it cannot be
expected to be an encyclopedia of whole prosecution case. It can be
expected from natural injuried that at the time of giving statement to the
Police in the Hospital, the informant mind is lingering around the incident
and at best she can state what was happened and it cannot be expected to
say motive even in the statement. That too it is not at all the evidence of
P.W.1 that at the time of the incident all the accused persons declared the
motive for the incident. However, PW1 in her examination-in-chief itself
deposed that A1 used to sell coconuts and also lemons in front of her house
and she objected for it, for which, all the accused beat her. PW1 in her cross-
examination stated that she stated before the police that the accused
persons were selling coconuts and lemons in front of her house and she
objected for it and as such in view of the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear
that there is specific motive for the offence. Hence, this point is answered
accordingly.

10) In the result, the 1st accused is found guilty of the offence
punishable U/s.326 of IPC and thereby she is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
of such offence. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are found guilty of the offence
punishable U/s.326 R/w.34 of IPC and thereby they are convicted U/s.248 (2)
of Cr.P.C. of such offence. Accused No.1, 2 and 4 are found guilty of the
offence punishable U/s.323 of IPC and thereby they are convicted U/s.248 (2)
of Cr.P.C. of such offence.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of September, 2016.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Questionnaire in regard to quantum of sentence:

When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused

pleaded mercy stating that they have aged parents to look after and their
health conditions are not good. This Court felt that that it is not a fit case to
 12

apply P.O. Act by taking lenient view. Hence, the accused No.1, 2 and 4 are
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and
also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each of the offence punishable
under Section 326 of IPC and in default of payment of fine amount, the
accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. Further the
accused No.1, 2 and 4 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of six months each of the offence punishable under Section 323 of
IPC.

The period of detention already undergone by the accused during

inquiry from 30.01.2014 to 31.01.2014 i.e. 1 day is ordered to be set off
U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. as against the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed against all the accused for both the
offences shall run concurrently.

The accused are informed that they have got right to prefer an appeal
before the Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur and they are entitled to get legal
aid in the event if they are not in a position to engage an Advocate and they
stated that they are having capacity to engage counsel.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:
PW1 : Bathineni Kusuma Kumari
PW2 : Bathineni Naga Lakshmi
PW3 : Bathineni Murali Krishna
PW4 : Vidadala Sujatha,
PW5 : Vidadala Sivamma
PW6 : Kunapureddy Siva Koteswari
PW7 : S. Bhavani Devi, C.A.S.
PW8 : K. Satish Babu, H.C.
PW9 : B. Radha Krishna, S.I. of Police

For Defence: Nil

 13

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Statement of PW1.
Ex.P2 : Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
Ex.P3 : Wound certificate
Ex.P4 : Hospital intimation
Ex.P5 : Original FIR
Ex.P6 : Rough sketch

Defence:

For Defence:
Ex.D1 : Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2
Ex.D2 : Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECT MARKED

---NIL---

P.J.C.J. Ch.Pet
 14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Offence Filing Apprehensi Released Commence Closure of Result

on of the on bail ment of trial trial
accused
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25.01.14 26.01.14 30.01.14 31.01.14 22.08.14 02/08/16 15.09.16

Explanation for the delay: On 01.03.2014, the case was taken on file. Copies are
furnished to the accused on 21.03.2014. The Accused was examined U/Sec.239
Cr.P.C on 06.08.2014. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 9 are examined in total
and Exs.P1 to Exs.P6 are marked and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked on behalf of the
accused. On 02.08.2016, the accused are examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining
the incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the same and
reported no defence evidence on their behalf, Heard both the sides and Judgment
pronounced on 15.09.2016. Vide Separate Judgment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.No.285/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUNIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chilakaluripet Town P.S. Complainant
And

1. Bathineni Anantha Lakshmi @ Anitha,

D/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
26 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.,

2. Bathineni Sunitha,
D/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
23 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet.,

3. Bathineni Srilaxmi @ Seenamma (died)

W/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,

4. Bathineni Siva Sankar @ Siva,

S/o. Bhagavan Narayana @ Bhagavan,
22 years, Telaga, D.No.36-118, opp. Sai Baba Temple,
Purushotapatnam, Chilakaluripet., .... Accused

Offence: U/Sec.323, 326 R/w.34 of IPC

Finding: Guilty

Sentence or Order: The 1st accused is found guilty of the offence punishable
U/s.326 of IPC and thereby she is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. of such
offence. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are found guilty of the offence punishable
 15

U/s.326 R/w.34 of IPC and thereby they are convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. of
such offence. Accused No.1, 2 and 4 are found guilty of the offence punishable
U/s.323 of IPC and thereby they are convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C. of such
offence. The accused No.1, 2 and 4 are sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year each and also sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each of the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and in default
of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of
one month each. Further the accused No.1, 2 and 4 are sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of six months each of the offence punishable
under Section 323 of IPC. The period of detention already undergone by the
accused during inquiry from 30.01.2014 to 31.01.2014 i.e. 1 day is ordered to
be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. as against the sentence of imprisonment imposed
on them. The sentence of imprisonment imposed against all the accused for
both the offences shall run concurrently.

{Fine amount of Rs.1500/- (Rs.500/- x 3) is paid}

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to:

1.The Honble Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.