PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K CHINNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question relating to joinder of charges arises in this case for consideration. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal by the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Pargi on the ground that the provisions of Section. 218 Co. P. C. are mindatory and that there should have been seperate charges for the distinct offences. The respondents were charged with offences punishable under sections 148, 452, 325 324, r/w Sec. 149 1PC The prosecution alleged there are two factions in the village of Dirsampally within the jurisdiction cf Pargi Police station. One group was led by Kapu Chinnayya and the other by Mal Reddy. On 21st of April, 1975 in the night one person belonging to the group of Mal Reddy was assaulted by a person belonging to the other group. On 22nd of April, 1975 at about 7A M people belonging to Mal Reddy group attacked one Nagaiah of the other group and caused him injuries. At about 2 P. M. on the same day persons belonging to the same group attacked Lambadi Tanda and Mal Reddy opened fire on Lambadas in which three persons received bullet injuries. This challenge was taken up by Kapu Chinnayy's faction and they chased Mala Reddy party people. As they fled, Mal Reddy, Bal Reddy and Narsimhulu concealed themselves within the house of one Jabbar. Some of the accused entered into the house by removing the door flanks and indiscriminately beat Narsimhulu, Mal Reddy and Bal Reddy with sticks ami stones and caused them injuries on their persons. Detailes as to who beat injuired person and with what-weapons are also described in the chage sheet. Then the accused proceeded further and entered the house of one Sangappa and in inflicted injuries on his person with sticks. This is allegated to have been doae by all the accused. Then they entered the house of Chandra Reddy, teat him and inflected injuries with sticks. Some of the accused participated in this beating. Thereafter, they entered the house of Bichappa and there he was beaten by some ef the accused, One Madiga Buggappa was also beaten in his house by 'some of the accused. There after they entered the bouse of Eswaraiab and Some of the accused caused injuries to him. Thereupon they entered the house of a muslim and caused injuries to one Buchanna who was hiding there Some of the accused beat him. The accused persons also beat P.W. 10 in the house of Jabb T with sticks. After this incident, Bal Reddy, one of the injured, went to Pagri Police Station and lodged a complaint and Crime No. 32/75 was registered. Mal Reddy however, went to Kosgi Police Station through the Medical officer of the hospital there. Crime No. 22/75 was registered there and was subsequently transferred to Pargi Police Station and was registered as Crime No. 34/75. Buchanna, another injured person, went to Kodangal Police Station through the Hospital where Crime No. 27/75 was registered which was also transferred to Pagri Police Station where it was registered as Crime No. 33/75. The two later crime numbers were merged with the Original Crime No. 32/75 of pagri Police Station. The injured Jabbar had to the Osmania Hospital at Hyderabad and a medical certificate, was issued in regard to the injuries on his body. During the course of investigation it was brought out that the accused persons, in pursuance of their common object, have committed the offences punishable under the sections stated above. The accused denied having committed the offences and pleaded not guilty. Thereupon tha learned Magistrate took up the case for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked 11 documents as EXJ. P-I toP II. The accused, in their turn, examined 3 witnesses and marked six documents as Exs. D-l to D-6 to rebut the case of the prosecution.

(2.) The accused were also examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. wherein the have stated that on account of party factions the entire case had been foisted against them by the complainant. They also set up another theory that all the injured persons had been beaten by the Harijans and Telagas of their village. It also appears from the judgment of the lower Court that arguments on both sides were also heard at lenght. There upon, the Lower Court delivered the Judgment having formulated the point for consideration as "Whether the procsecution has proved the case against the accused the person under Ss. 148, 452, 324, 325, r/W. 149 I.P.C. as alleged by it . After examining the evidence the lower court observed in Para graph it thus : "Therefore, the only section which is applicable is Sec. 147 persons have formed into an unlawful assembly with I P.C. there is ample evidence in the record that the accused common object of taking revenge on the injured P.W. who happen to be the party members of their rival group. Therefore, Sec. 147 proved against the accused persons are concerned. Then taking up the charge under Sec. 452, the learned Magistrate said ; "Therefore the offence under sec. 452 has also been proved against all the accused persons". In so far as charge under Sec. 325 was concerned, the Lower Court found ; "Therefore, here in this case the evidence of P.W. 3 reveals that accused No. 1 has caused grevious hurt to him, i. e, on account of his beating he has sustained a fracture of right humerous and fracture midshaft of right ulna. Therefore, accused No. 1 is guilty of Sec. 325 I P.C. The lower Court did not think that the charge under Sec. 324 was made out. But instead, it held ;

(3.) The learned Magistrate also took notice of the contention of the A.P. P.O., that this was a case which come under sec. 220 Cr.P.C. The learnted Magistrate thereafter pointed out that the injured persons made complaints separately in different police stations and fhat some of the injured persons chose not to file any complaints in pursuance of the assault on them bv the accused persons. In the course of investigation, the investigating Officer has gathered the information of causing assault on all the other prosecution witnesses apart from P. Ws. 1,5 and 10. The filing of the joint charge sheet against the accused persons, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, "will naturally prejudice the case of the accused persons in their proper defence of their case as it being of numerous incidents roped in one case and more over the statements of P.Ws 1 to 10 will not state that all the 13 accused persons have participated in the commission of offence at all the places and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the joint trial for all these incidents is bad in law and required to be splitted." Therefore, he concluded it by saying "I hold that the separate trial for each incident is an apt thing so far as this case is concerned". Having said this, he acquitted the accused. The resume I have given above is that of the judgment of the learned Magistrate It is indeed strange that having completed trial, heard the arguments and pronounced that the accused were guilty of certain offences the learned Magistrate changed his mind at the fag end of the judgment because the learned defence councel raised an argument at that stage that prejudice to the accused might be caused on account of the Joint trial. It is stranger still that the learntd Magistrate has chosen to acquit the accused, without even leaving it open to the prosecution to launch separate cases.