Display PDF
Display PDF
SC.No.1/2024
7 Finding of the Court : Found guilty for the offence U/Sec 307 r/w 34 of
IPC.
8 Sentence or Order : The accused no.1 to 3 are sentenced each to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One thousand only) each for the
offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and in default
Page 2 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
Crime No.69 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w
Kowtala and lodged a report in which he stated that, his younger son
PW2/Yelmule Sairam was having a little love affair with Kalayani who
younger son went to his cousin brother’s house after having dinner.
At about 22.30 hours his younger son was urinating behind the
with their faces and came to his son from behind and forcibly inserted
kerchief into his son’s mouth, took him to his farm near his village
park and beat his son indiscriminately by saying that his son loves
Kalyani and threw his son into a well in his farm with the intention to
kill him.
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and took up the
and seized the yellow colour T-shirt, black colour belt and sandals of
the victim from the scene of offence. He also visited the Gundaipet
persons and secured the presence of PW10 and LW10 and prepared
Page 4 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
A1 to A3 and seized the cement colour realme mobile phone with IMEI
PW13 in which the Doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the
First Class, Sirpur for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w
Sessions Case No.1/2024 and made over to this Court for disposal
according to law.
Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3, the same were read
over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial
evidence.
were examined, Exs. P-1 to P-8 and MOs.1 to 5 were got marked. The
them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no
10) Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and
the learned Counsel for the defence. Written arguments filed by the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the
“Whether the prosecution has able to prove the charges for the offence
punishable Under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 to A3
beyond all reasonable doubt”?
13) POINT:
intention to kill the PW2 forcibly taken him to his agricultural field and
mercilessly beat him and thrown him into the agricultural well. So,
left their house and went to the house of his younger brother and
while returning from the house and when he reached the bridge to
attend nature calls, the accused persons came to him and forcibly
taken his son to the nursery and mercilessly beat him and thrown him
Page 7 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
that his son came out from the agricultural fields with help of engine
pipe and later he went to the house of LW4/Elkar Indira Bai who is his
relative and narrated the incident to her and he came to know about
PW1 he rushed to the house of the LW4/Elkar Indira Bai and taken his
son to the hospital at Kowtala and on the next day he lodged the
police report under Ex.P1. The PW1 further deposed that the reason
for the above incident was that his son fell in love with the daughter
kill his son beat him and thrown him into the agricultural well. During
the cross examination the PW1 categorically deposed that his family
and accused family are not having any disputes prior to this incident.
But the Learned Counsel for the accused persons put the suggestion
that there are land disputes between them, as such he lodged this
false case, but the same was denied by the PW1 and even the
Learned Counsel for the accused also not elicited anything from him
14) So, the evidence of the PW1 is intact and believable, but on
of the PW1 requires the corroboration of the victim i.e. the son of
PW1. So, the prosecution examined the son of PW1 as PW2 and his
Page 8 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
and the gist of the evidence is that since some days prior to this
incident the daughter of the accused No.1 and himself were fell in
message from the phone of the accused No.1, in which it appears that
to go to his house and reached one pan shop and attending the
nature calls, three persons by closing their faces with towels came to
him and caught hold him and put the kerchief in his mouth and took
him to the agricultural field and further they beat him mercilessly. He
further deposed that while he was trying to escape from their clutches
they caught hold him from backside and in the meantime he removed
the towel of A1 from the face of the accused No.1 and identified he is
the father of the said Kalyani and he also identified other (2) faces
when their towels are fell down. Further they pushed him into the
from the well and went to the house of LW4/Elkar Indira Bai who
informed the incident to PW1. On the next day of the incident the
putting suggestions which are denied by the PW2. So, from the
the incident was that the PW2 fell in love with the daughter of the
persons forcibly took the PW2 to the agricultural fields in-order to kill
him and beat him mercilessly and thrown him into the well. Further
this Court opined that if the PW2 is not known the swimming he will
intention of the accused persons is very much appearing with the acts
15) Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is the mother of the PW2
and her evidence is also in same lines with that of the PW1 and her
PW2 and she deposed that about one year ago on one day in the
midnight the PW2 came to her house and knocked the door and when
she opened the door the PW2 was present without shirt and informed
that the accused persons thrown him into the agricultural well and
she inturn informed the same to the PW1 over phone. During the
Page 10 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
cross examination also nothing was elicited from her to disbelieve her
corroborating regarding after the incident the PW2 went to the house
of PW4 who is his relative and informed the incident and she inturn
informed the same to the PW1. The Learned Counsel for the accused
incident was took place in the night hours that to in the outskirts of
same. Further merely on the ground that the PWs.1 to 4 are relatives,
in the Indian Evidence Act to say that the evidence of the relatives
16) Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is the son of the PW4 and
his evidence is that PW2 was fell in love with the daughter of the
accused No.1. About (10) or (11) months ago on one day at about
received to his phone from one Kalyani and the message was that she
requested the PW2 to come to her house and that message was sent
from the mobile phone of her father. He made phone call to PW2 and
Page 11 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
informed that not to went to the house of the Kalyani. Later, at about
2.15 am the PW2 came to their house and his mother opened the
door and noticed that PW2 was found shirtless and he narrated the
believable and nothing was elicited from the PW5 during the cross
examination.
and his evidence is that the PW2 came to his house at about 7.30 pm
about one year ago on one day and left the house at 10.30 pm and he
came to know on the next day that the PW2 was admitted in the one
PW1 as deposed that the PW2 went to the house of his younger
brother i.e. the PW6’s house. So, his evidence is also connecting the
witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama i.e. crime detail form-
I, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. The Learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing was elicited
from them. PW10 who is the panch witness for scene of offence
panchanama which was conducted at the place from which the PW2
Page 12 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
was forcibly taken away by the accused persons and he deposed that
about one year ago the Police conducted the scene of offence
panchanama and drawn the rough sketch near the pan shop of one
Elmure Vijay and obtained his signature along with other panch
19) PWs.11 and 12 are the panch witnesses for the confession and
Kowtala called them to the Palle prakruthi vanam back side and there
a well is situated and the accused persons were present there and
they enquired with them and they confessed that PW2 was having
love affair with the daughter of the accused No.1, as such in the night
hours they brought the PW2 near the well and beat him and also
pushed him into the well and the Police seized the mobile phones
from the accused persons. During the cross examination both the
persons were in the custody of the Police and they confessed in their
20) PW13 who is the Doctor who issued the injury certificate to the
namely Yelmule Sai Ram and noted the injuries and which are simple
surface. So, this admission itself is sufficient to prove the case of the
prosecution, why because the case of the prosecution ist hat the
accused persons thrown the PW2 into the well, so the injury sustained
prosecution.
Yellow colour T-shirt, Black colour belt and sandals of the victim from
the scene of offence and the PWs.4 and 5 who had seen the PW2 first
time after the incident and deposed that the PW2 came to their house
corroborating with the version of PWs.4 and 5. Even though the PW14
was cross examined at length, but nothing was elicited from him to
say that the case of the prosecution is false and he conducted the
Page 14 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
brothers in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “evidence given
Bihar in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “witness related or
Court held that, “eye witnesses are family members, their evidence
credibility of the witness and the settled law is that the evidence of
PWs.2 and 5 and official witnesses, other witnesses are illiterate and
not known the Court proceedings and not recovered from the tragedy,
prosecution case, unless the route of the case is effected and in this
of Bihar reported in 2022 ALD (8) and also Mustak alias Kanio
page 892 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “minor
23) With regard to the non supporting of the panch witnesses is not
fatal to the prosecution and when they admit their signatures and in the
prosecution version” and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in a large
number of cases that merely because the panch witnesses have turned
Page 17 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
24) With regard to the when there is a dispute between medical and
ocular evidence the ocular evidence will prevail and the medical
of the Doctor in respect of time of injury and not conclusive about the
them.
coupled with the evidence of the PW13 and the evidence of the
Investigating Officer clearly proved that, the PW2 sustained the injuries
due to acts of the accused and if the PW2 while fell down into the well if
cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this case there was a clear
accused persons was well established with the following chain of action
(Crl) 722 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the
however, does not mean that entire evidence of such witness is false
hood. The Court can separate the truth from false statement and it is not
portion of such portion is false” and further this Court relied on the
Court held that, “when the witnesses are villagers the Court has to keep
in mind rustic nature of depositions of such witness who may not depose
hand, it is clear that the accused persons attacked the PW2 and beat him
and thrown him into the agricultural well with an intention to kill him, but
doubt.
26) On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused persons
27) After hearing the rival arguments of the both the parties and after
28) As such this Court held that the accused No.1 to 3 are found
guilty for the offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted
U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.
reported that the accused no.1 to 3 are own brothers; and they are the
sole bread earners of the family and accused No.2 and 3 submitted that
they are having small children and the accused No.1 is having one
unmarried daughter and they all are depending on agriculture and they
further submitted that they did not commit this offence and requested to
to take lenient view in awarding the punishment for the charged offence.
Page 20 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
30) In the result, the A1 to A3 are found guilty for the charge
punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused no.1 to 3 are
years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for
the offence U/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the
one month for the above offence. The remand period of accused no.1 to
The MO.1 i.e. Realme cell phone shall be given to the accused No.1 and
appeal against this judgment and on enquiry they stated that they have
-None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Police report.
Ex.P2: Signature of PW8 on crime detail form-1.
Ex.P3: Signature of PW9 on crime detail form-1.
Ex.P4: Crime detail form along with rough sketch.
Ex.P5: Confession and seizure panchanama.
Ex.P6: Injury certificate of PW2.
Ex.P7: First information report.
Ex.P8: Crime detail form-1.
For Defence:
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
For Prosecution : For Defence :
MO.1: Realme mobile phone. - Nil -
Page 22 of 22
SC.No.1/2024
MO.2: Towel.
MO3: Yellow colour T-Shirt.
MO4: Black colour belt.
MO5: Sandal of victim.
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
ASIFABAD