A.HimaBindu

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : A. Hima bindu, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

C.C.NO. 207 /2019

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station.… Complainant.

And:

1) Bokka Chandravathi @ Satyavathi W/o Kumara Swami, Age 48yrs, C/ Settibalija, Varrapalem, Nallacheruvu (P), Ainavilli Mandal.

2) Bokka Kumara Swami, S/o late Venkata Ratnam, Age 55 yrs, C/ Settibalija, Varrapalem, Nallacheruvu (P), Ainavilli Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 21.04.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Kudupudi Ashok, Advocate for the accused 1 and 2 and upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.9/2019of Ainavilli Police Station registered a case against both the accused for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 353 read with

Section 34 of the IPC on the basis of report of PW.1.

2.PW.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station, laid the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC against both the accused with the following averments:

3.PW.1 is working as Panchayat Secretary in Nalla Cheruvu Panchayat of

Ainavilli Mandal. In the puntha road of Barre Vari Palem comes under Nalla Cheruvu

Panchayat, A1 Bokka Satyavathi and A2 Bokka Kumara Swamy has encroached and

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 2 erected/raised the shed in the Nalla Cheruvu Puntha Road. As they erected shed across the puntha road, the neighboring farmers are suffering a lot in passing through the puntha road, due to they were blocked said road and they caused obstructing in the pathway of the puntha road. The panchayat authorities informed the said Bokka Kumara Swamy and his wife Satyavathi @ Chandravathi to remove the encroaches immediately and they will show some substitute place to them for their lively hood, but they did not care the words of panchayat authorities. In the

Janmabhoomi programme held on 09.01.2019 during the village meeting all the villagers and farmers have submitted unanimous petition to the panchayat authorities with a request to remove the illegal encroachments from the puntha road, to confiscate coconut trees and get the coconuts removed from the coconut trees and to hand over the same to Panchayat. On that Mandal Nodal Officer, issued oral instructions to the panchayat secretary to that removal illegal encroachments immediately. On that on 10.01.2019, at about 10.00 AM, the said panchayat secretary and his staff while trying to remove the coconuts from the coconuts trees in the encroached land, meanwhile Bokka Kumara Swamy and his wife caused obstruction to the panchayat secretary and his staff, detered them from discharging legitimate duties.

4.Further, the farmers i.e., Chintidi Anantha Lakshmi Satyavathi, Varre

Srinivasa Rao, Sunkara Bhaskara Rao were filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble

High Court of Hyderabad vide W.P.No.19599 of 2017 that the official respondents are taking action to remove the encroachments effectively flow of cultivable water and drainage channel of the irrigation land, wherein the Hon’ble Court passed Orders “to remove the encroachments and restore the original drainage channel for the effective cultivation and discharge of drainage water by abutting owner, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Though there is direction of the Hon’ble High

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 3

Court, the accused A1 and A2 disobeyed the Court Orders and Orders of the

Panchayat Officers. When LW1 tried to remove the encroachments made by the accused, detered them from discharging their official duties and thereby caused confined them and obstructed. Further LW6 obtained detailed report of said alleged land site from Tahsildar, Ainavilli as per the revenue records.

5.On 02.02.2019, LW6/SI of Police, Inavilli PS served notice U/Sec.41-A CrPC to the A1 and A2. After completion of the investigation by the LW6, he filed charge-sheet

before the Court. Hence, the charge.

6.Cognizance was take for the offences under Sections 341, 447, 353 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 and 2.

7. After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. and they denied the offences. Charges under Sections 341, 447, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu by my learned predecessor for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and it was coming up for trial.

8.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

9.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 4

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

11. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 447, 341, 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT NO.1:

12.The case of the prosecution is that the accused illegally trespassed the government land and raised a shed and made a obstruction to the free passage of villagers/farmers and also obstructed the PW1 while he trying to plucking the coconuts.

13.In order to prove his case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is the defacto-complainant and PWs. 2 to 5 are the abutting villagers. PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

14. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution argued that all the witnesses supported the prosecution case and proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and requested the Court to punish the accused as per Law.

15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defence argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 are not corroborating each other and prosecution failed to examine the

VRO and not choosed to file any documentary proof/evidence as the accused were obstructed the PW1 and his staff while plucking the coconuts. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prays the Court to acquit the accused.

16.In order to make out an offence Section 447 of the IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused were trespassed/entered into the land of government with intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person of such

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 5 property. So also, to make out an offence U/Section.341 of the IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused wrongfully restrained or obstructed the PW1. Further, to make out an offence U/Section 353 of the IPC, the prosecution shall prove that the accused threatened PW1.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who set the Criminal Law into motion, discloses that from 01.07.2017 to 21.12.2021 he was worked as in-charge Panchayat

Secretary to Nalla Cheruvu , Ainavilli Mandal. Further, he deposed that there is a puntha road in R.S.No.494 same is belongs to Grama panchayat and that was encroached by this accused and constructed a rekula shed and running a coffee hotel. As raised a shed and running a coffee hotel by the accused made a disturbance and obstruction to the free passage of public. PW1 severally requested the accused to remove the said shed but they did not care his words. On 09.01.2019

Mandal Janmabhumi team conducted a Grama Sabha on that some of the same villagers made a representation through a memo to remove a hotel and place encroached by the these accused and directed to handover the what was the income earned through yielding of coconut trees. As per the representation of the public , his superiors i.e., MRO and Mandal Janmabhumi Nodel Officer instructed him to plucking the coconut and deposit the sale amount to them, so that he along with his staff went to the said place on 10.01.2019 at 11:00 am trying to plucking the coconuts, meanwhile accused were obstructed them and interrupted their public duties as such he informed the same to his superiors. As per the instruction of his superior he lodged a complaint to Police on 13.01.2019. Further he deposed that he has waited till 13.01.2019 for instruction of his superior to gave complaint . Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW1 further stated that Hon’ble High Court issued a direction vide

Writ Petition No.19599/2017 about to remove the encroachments , said order copy he handed over to concerned Police.

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 6

18.During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he stated that he went to

Nallacheruvu Village as a in charge officer. He do not know whether any other persons were made a parties in said writ petition filed by the government except these accused. He do not know about the Civil Suit i.e., 207/2017 filed by the accused in the same. He did not enquired from how long period accused has been living in the said village and also the complaint given by these accused against Varre Sheshu and

Rama Krishna. Further, he stated that accused were obstructed him while plucking the coconuts and he did not filed any documentary proof as the his superior instructed him to plucking the coconuts at the scene of offence. He does not know whether there is any community disputes between accused family and LWs.3 to 5/

PWs.2 to 5. He admitted that accused are presently residing in the same place. Later he stated that his predecessor removed the alleged shed as per the directions of the

Hon’ble High Court. Police was examined him on the same day when he lodged a

complaint. He however denied various suggestions put to him by defence/accused counsel.

19.As seen the evidence of PW2, he stated in his cross examination that his coconut garden is in adjacent to the house of these accused . By the time of incident he was in his house, he came out from his house after heard the sounds and cries. He further stated that PW1 did not shown to him any document. As seen the overall evidence of the PW2 is not corroborate the evidence of PW1. In his chief examination he deposed that basing on the representation to Janmabhumi committee, panchayat officials came to the scene of offence and trying to plucking the coconuts mean time accused obstructed the PW1, but in cross examination he stated that due to heard the sounds and crisis he came out of his house. He however denied the suggestion that he gave a evidence as the influence of politicians and deposing false. As seen the entire evidence of PW2, he simple said panchayat officials came to the scene

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 7 offence by the time of alleged incident but he did not say who are they and how many officials came, there is no proper explanation. Further, prosecution also not chosen to examine them and also not cited them as a witness in the charge sheet. Therefore, the version of the PW2 is not convincing the Court .

20.The evidence of PW3 shows that there was a previous disputes between himself and accused , accused filed a a criminal case against him same was disposed and he is convicted in the said case. So the evidence of PW3 not give much confidence on this Court.

21.The evidence of PW4, shows that he clearly admitted that he does not know the incident personally but Panchayat officials were came to the scene of offence for plucking the coconuts . As can be seen the evidence on record of PW4 is not directly witnessed the incident, at the same time who are that panchayat officials is no clarification from his evidence/end. So his version also not believable.

22. As the evidence of P.W5 he stated in his cross examination that presently accused are not residing in the alleged scene of offence and again said there is a tached pakka house which was raised by the accused, in this point there is a two version on the mouth of pw5 at the same time. Later he stated , who plated the said coconut trees . If ,see the entire evidence of pw5 is no way helpful to the version of the prosecution.

23.The evidence of PW6, who was the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence disclose that on 13.01.2019 at 8.00pm PW1 came to Police Station and lodged a Ex.P1 report on that he registered the case in Crime No.9/2019, U/Sections 447, 341, 353 r/w 34 of IPC . He issued a original FIR to the Hon’ble Court. Ex.P2 is the FIR. On 14.01.2019 he went to scene of offence situated at Nalla Cheruvu Puntha road and prepared a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P3 . On the same day he recorded the statements of PWs. 2 to 5 . On 24.1.2019 he made a requisition to the M.R.O about

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 8 to furnish the details of the scene of offence alleged to occupied by the accused. The

M.R.O issued a reply notice basing on said requisition .Ex.P4 is the reply notice.

During his cross examination , he stated that by the time when he visited the said alleged scene of offence ,he asked the both the parties about the documents of the alleged scene of offence to know and produced before the court as evidence , alleged property belongs to whom, but none were choose to handover to him. Further he stated PWs2 to 5 residing near to the scene of offence but he did not shown the same in ExP.3 I.e rough sketchs . At the same time he admitted he did not choose to file any photos or C.Ds before the court while accused restraining /obstucted the

P.W1 when he tried to plucking the coconuts and P.W1 also not submitted to him any documentary proof. Further he admitted that he has not tried to secure any report from V.R.O Nallacheruvu.. The evidence of PW.6 is also contrary to the evidence of

PW.1 on the material aspects. Not only that, PW6 did not state before the Court that the accused restrained PW1 or threatened PW1 or took away the coconuts. Thus, the evidence of PW.6 is also not useful to the case of the prosecution which clearly creates any amount of doubt in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the entire case of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused about the falsity of the present case gains paramount importance, which cannot be lost sight of in any manner.

24. It may be noted here that PW.1 did not produce any document belonging to the said land either before the police or before the Court and that PW6 also did not make any endeavour to secure the document belonging to the said land and in the absence of any document, it is very difficult to come to any conclusion as to whether to whom the said land was belonged to. PWs.1 and 6 also failed to secure any documents even from the concerned revenue authorities during the course of investigation, for the reasons best known to them.

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 9

25. Not only that, as the prosecution failed to file any piece of paper before the Court in order to prima facie show that the disputed property is belongs to government and that the accused trespassed into the said land. In the absence of any such material

before the Court, it does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court to

believe the version of the prosecution against the accused and also failed to produced the any evidence about accused obstructed the PW1 while plucking the coconuts, at least not chosen to examine the person who was on that day trying to plucking the coconuts in the instructions of the PW1.

26.At this stage, it is apt to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA [(2008) 11 SCC 670] wherein it was inter alia held that a pure and simple civil dispute between the parties cannot be permitted to be converted into a criminal offence by resorting to pressure tactics.

27.In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there was a delay in lodging Ex.P1 report is concerned, it is imperative to refer to the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in HARILAL v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) [AIR 2023 SC 4239] wherein while inter alia considering the aspect of delay in lodging FIR it was held succinctly thus:

“19.Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW-9 as regards the delay in lodging the FIR but the fact that it was a delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work.………”

Keeping in mind the law laid down in the said Judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it certainly goes to show

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 10 that as per the evidence of PW.6, Ex.P1 report was lodged by PW1 on 13.01.2019 at 08.00 P.M. whereas the alleged incident in this case took place at 11.00 A.M. on 10.01.2019 and thus there was a delay of 3 days in lodging Ex.P1 report and the said delay is not properly explained by PW1, simply said waited for their superiors instructions and failed to choose to examine their superiors . However, in column

No.8 of Ex.P5 FIR the reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant it was mentions as “No delay” but such delay was not explained by PW1 properly for the reasons best known to him. In that view of the matter, the possibility of embellishments in the prosecution case after due deliberations cannot be ruled out, more particularly in the backdrop of the civil cases pending between the accused and

PW3 and Government in OS.207 of 2017. Thus, the delay in lodging Ex.P1 report by

PW1 is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

And as seen the Ex.P3 does not disclose anything/nothing about the where the alleged shed raised and coconuts trees etc., were there by the time of alleged incident. The investigation officer failed to explain properly.

28. The entire evidence on record does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in order to trust and believe the same. Thus, keeping in mind the

Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above, it can safely be concluded that the entire evidence is not trustworthy and convincing evidence before the Court to show that the accused committed the offences with which they are charged, as alleged by the prosecution.

29.It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions. Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, in the

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 11 light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, Point

No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

30.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the CrPC of the said offences. The accused are directed to execute a bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the CrPC.

Typed to my dictation to typist corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 12

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined.

For Prosecution. For Defence.

PW1.Palaparthi Edwin Sundar Lal. NONE. PW2. Chittineedi Cvenkata Rama Krishna. PW3. Varre Seshu Rama Krishna. PW4. Varre Kanna Krishna. PW5. Varre Naga Satti Raju. PW6. Sheik John Basha.

Documents Marked.

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1. NIL. Ex.P.2: FIR. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch. Ex.P.4: Letter from MRO, Ainavilli Mandal.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.NO.207/2019PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 13

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of casestried by A.Hima Bindu, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

CC.No.207/2019

Date of Offence:10.01.2019

Report or Complaint:13.01.2019

Commencement of Trial:03.04.2025

Close of Trial:15.04.2025

Sentence or order:23.04.2025

Explanation for delay:No Delay

Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station. Name of the accused:

1) Bokka Chandravathi @ Satyavathi, W/o Kumara Swamy, Age 48 years, C/Settibalija, Varrepalem, Nallacheruvu (P), Ainvailli (M).

2) Bokka Kumara Swamy, S/o Late Venkata Ratnam, Age 55 years, C/Settibalija, Varrepalem, Nallacheruvu (P), Ainvailli (M). Offence:U/Sections 447, 341, 353 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding :Not guilty

: O R D E R :

In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The accused are directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, for favour of information.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-1-

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINICIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : A.Himabindu, Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

C.C.NO. 650 /2021

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station … Complainant And:

1)Pulidindi Ravi, S/o Satyanarayana, A/28 years, SC Mala Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

2)Bula Srinu, S/o Bhima Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

3) Bula Arjuana Rao, S/o Bhima Rao, A/28 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

4) Kakulapati Haribabu, S/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, A/22 years, SC Mala, Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

5) Penumala Venkatesh, S/o Nageswara Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

6) Bula Durga Prasad, S/o Dharma Raju, A/50 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

7) Pulidindi Sanjeev, S/o Ramarao, A/33 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

8) Pulidindi Yesuraju @ Puli, S/o Krishna Murthy, A/24 years, SC Mala, pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

9) Pulidindi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Kumara Swamy, A/25 years, SC Mala, pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

10) Mulla Ravi Raju, S/o Sundra Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Jamindharpeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

11) Degala Venkata Lokesh, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/25 years, Jamindharpeta, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

12) Jogi Babju S/o Lakshmana Sawamy, 56 yrs, Settibalija, Main Road, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

13) Bonthu Jagadish Kumar S/o Satyanarayana, A/30 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

14) Bonthu Satyanarayana S/o Suryanarayana, A/36 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

15) Bonthu Bala Naga Prasad S/o Subbarao, A/41 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-2-

16.Kudipudi Jnana Venkata Prasad s/O Rama Rao, A/19yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal. 17.Bonthu Srinu S/oRamakrishna, A/42 yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

18. Kudipudi Balaraju S/o Suryanarayana, A/58yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

19. Mattaparthi Srinivas s/O Durga Rao, A/ 30 yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal. 20.Guthula Venkata Ramana S/o Pillamsetti, A/ 25yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

21. Kudipudi Mohan Lova Ramesh S/o Ramagovinda Raju, A/ 27yrs, Settibalija, Sanaboyinavaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

22. Kudipudi Babji S/o Narasimha Murthy, A/ 29yrs, Settibalija, Jogivaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

23. Bonthu Ramesh S/o Suryaarao, A/42yrs, Settibalija, near Panchayathi Office Bonthuvaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 17.04.2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 11, Sri A. Suresh, Advocate for accused No.12 to 23 Accused No.7 died and upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.26 of 2021 of Ainavilli Police Station registered initially against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 186 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of statement of

Defacto complainant.

2.The brief averments of the case with the following averments are

On 15.1.2021, at about 9.45 pm while the L.W.1 Shaik Jani Basha, Sub

Inspector of Police, Ambajipeata Police station along with the other staff i.e., L.Ws 7 to 11 attending bandobast duty by following Nedhunuru Prabha in view of Prabhala

Tirtham Festival and when they reached four road junction near the Statue of

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-3-

Alluri Seetha Rama Raju, Nedhunuru village, Ainavilli Mandal, the accused A.1 to

A.11, who belongs to S.C community and the accused A.12 to A.23 who belongs to

Settibalija Community armed with sticks and stones, disputed each against other by attacking each against another and by hurling stones, when the L.W.1 and the other police staff tried to passify them they behaved rudely, continued the dispute by attacking each against another with sticks and by hurling stones by obstructing the legitimate duties of the L.W.1./ complainant and other police staff. One of the stone which was thrown by one of the person from the mob hit on the left side nose of face of L.W.1., as a result of which L.W.1 have sustained a severe bleeding injury and some of the persons of B.C and S.C groups also sustained injuries. Later injured/ complainant/ LW.1 was shifted to Area Hospital Amalapuram by the L.W.9 and P.C 2042 of Ambajipeta P.S. in the jeep and admitted him for getting treatment.

Later L.W.1 shifted to Srinidhi Hospital for better treatment.

On receipt of hospital intimation of the complainant , L.W.15, HC 2872 of

S.H.O, Ainavilli P.S visited Area Hospirtal, Amalapuram and recorded the statement of L.W.1 on 16.1.2020 at 00.10 hours. L,.W.16 E. Narasimhamurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli P.S., who received the hospital intimation and statement of L.W.1 from L.W.15 registered the same as F.I.R in Cr. No. 26/2021 U/s 147, 332,148, 353, 186 r/w 149 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation L.W.7 visited the scene of offence and seized two brick pieces for the purpose of investigation in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws 12 and L.W.13. Further he prepared rough sketch and got drafted an observation report. Later he examined and recorded the detailed statement of injured/ complainant and other witnesses. During the course of further investigation the accused No. A.2 to A.11, 13 to 22 were arrested on 16.1.2021 and send them for judicial custody. L.W.14 who treated the injured

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-4-

/L.W.1 issued the wound certificate. During the course of further investigation

L.W.17 issued Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused A.1, A.12 and A.23 on 5.8.2021. After completion of the investigation by L.W.17, filed a charge sheet against the above noted accused before this Hon’ble Court. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 353, 332 r/w 149 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) against A.1 to A.23.

4. After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., it was coming up for examination of the accused.

5.Then the accused were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the offences and Charges under Sections 332, 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC were framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10, the details of which are mentioned at the appendix of evidence.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence accused were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witness against them for which they were denied the same and reported no defence evidence, hence no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC beyond all

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-5-

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 15 and Ex.P.1 to P.10.

11. The case of the prosecution totally based on direct evidence of injured witness i.e., P.W.1 and corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, 12, 14 and 15. P.Ws 2 to 6 and 8 to 11, 13 did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.As seen the evidence of injured ie., P.W.1 who is defacto complainant deposed that 15.1.2021 at about 9.45 P.M, he along with his staff were attending bandobast duties at Nedunuru Prabhala Festival and were following on going procession and when the prosession reached near four road junction near the statuee of Alluri Seetha Rama Raju, Nedhunuru village, some villagers who are belongs to S.C community sat across the road and thereby procession could not be moved a head. When the procession was tried to move a head by the people who were belong to settibalija community, the said villagers belong to S.C community demanded apology from the B.C community with regard to the previous disputes pertaining to the previous Prabhala Festivals, on that himself and local Sub-

Inspector of Police requested the S.C community people not to cause obstruction to the on going procession for which they did not heed their words. Then on going procession was forcefully moving a head and in that connection S.C community and B.C Community people disputed each other and both sides pelted stones each other, as a result, both parties sustained bleeding injuries. In that process B.C community people were beating one person belong to S.C community with legs and hands. When they tried to rescue the said victim and by the time one stone hit on his left side mustache, and there by he sustained bleeding injuries. Then they

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-6-

separated both the parties. Then they were run away there from. Later P.C 2043 shifted him to the V.N.Nursing home, Amalapuram for treatment. Later H.C 2872 came to the hospital, on receipt of hospital intimation and recorded his statement.

Later inspected of Police, Amalapuram Rural Circle examine him and recorded his detailed statement, Ex.P.1 is his statement. Further he deposed in his evidence that due to darkness prevailing at the time of said incidence he could not clearly identify the persons in both the groups who caused obstruction to the on going procession on that day.

13.During his cross examination by the learned counsel for defence he admitted that due to heavy gathering of people and darkness prevail at the time of the said incident he could not identify the persons from both the parties. He further admitted that he sustained the said injuries unexpectedly and it was not wantonly in the said procession. Further he denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel that as the advise of his superior officers he gave a false statement against the accused and there by false case was foisted against the accused.

14.Further PWs.2 to 6 who examined on behalf of prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Though the learned APP cross- examined them with the permission of the Court, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them in support of the case of the prosecution. Hence their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case, except marking their earlier statement U/s 161

Cr.P.C as Ex.P.2 to 6.

15.Later as seen the evidence of P.W.7 / V.R.O., deposed that on 16.1.2021 at about 5.00 AM while he was present at his house one police constable came to his house and requested him to come over to Ainavilli Police station to act as a mediator. Immediately him self and L.W.13 accompanied S.I. of police and one

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-7-

constable all were proceeded to Near Sivalayam four road junction in Nedunuru village, where at C.I of police was present. In his presence police observed the scene of offense and found broken bricks there and two broken bricks were seized in his presence and also affixed identity slips thereon after obtaining his signature. At scene of offense he drafted scene observation report. ExP.7 is the scene observation report and he identified the seized two broken bricks i.e., M.O.1.

During his cross examination he stated that he did not obtain permission from the M.R.O. before proceeding to the police station. During the Prabhala

Festival all the roads were covered with bricks, dust and dirt. Further he admitted that dispute arise at the scene of offense he came to know through C.I. of Police.

Ex.P.7 report was drafted at the dictation of C.I. of police. Later he demand the suggestion that Ex.P.7 report was drafted at the police station and himself and

L.W.13 signed there on at the instance of the police.

16.The evidence of P.W.8 to 11 and 13 clearly shows that they cannot identified the person who beat P.W.1 and other persons with stones as there was huge gathering of people were present in the said mob and further admitted that they cannot identified the person who were present in the court in the said mob as it was dark.

17. The evidence of P.W.12 shows that on 15.1.2020 at about 11.30 PM he examined the P.W.1 and found the injuries. Basing on the injuries he issued a wound certificate to P.W.1 i.e., Ex.P.8.

18.As seen overall the evidence of the prosecution witnesses undoubtedly they are admitted that, they did not identified the accused in the said incident, hence with out identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses exclusively

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-8-

P.W.1 who is sustained injuries in the said procession. So it is clearly shown that prosecution failed to prove their case. Therefore on overall consideration of the oral, document evidence in the record at best the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19.It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions. Further, there must be a evidence to convict the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has failed to identified the accused and bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the point is accordingly answered in favour of all the accused and against the prosecution.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 23 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled after appeal time is over. The

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court this is the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-9-

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

1) Sri Shaik Jani Basha NONE

2) Sri Chiluvuru Sairaju

3) Sri Paramata Reddy

4) Sri Nagalla Nagababu

5) Sri Kavalipati Srinivasa Rao

6) Sri Vasa Venkatesh

7) Sri Devagupthapu Umamaheswara Rao

8) Sri Ch. Rajesh

9) Sri Mudragada Murthy

10) Sri K.H.Prasad

11. Sri Janga Satyanarayana

12) Sri Dr. V. Narayana Raju

13) Sri Palepu Dharma Chakravarthi.

14) Sri E. Narasimha Murthy

15) Sri G.Suresh Babu

Documents marked

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. NIL Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P7: Scene observation report. Ex.P8: Wound certificate of P.W.1 issued by PW.12. Ex.P9: F.I.R in Cr.No26/2021 of Ainavilli Police Station. Ex.P.10: Rough sketch.

Material objects Marked

M.O.1: Two bricks

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-10-

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari

Calendar of Case tried by Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offenceReport of complaintApprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16.01.2021 27.01.2021 (A2 to A11, A13 to A22) 15.01.2021 16.01.2021 05.08.2021 05.08.2021 (Sec. 41(A) CrPC to (Station Bail to A1, A12 & A23)A1, A12 & A23) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19.09.2024 15.04.2025 22.04.2025 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No. 650/2021 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)Pulidindi Ravi, S/o Satyanarayana, A/28 years, SC Mala Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

2)Bula Srinu, S/o Bhima Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

3) Bula Arjuana Rao, S/o Bhima Rao, A/28 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

4) Kakulapati Haribabu, S/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, A/22 years, SC Mala, Pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-11-

5) Penumala Venkatesh, S/o Nageswara Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

6) Bula Durga Prasad, S/o Dharma Raju, A/50 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

7) Pulidindi Sanjeev, S/o Ramarao, A/33 years, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

8) Pulidindi Yesuraju @ Puli, S/o Krishna Murthy, A/24 years, SC Mala, pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

9) Pulidindi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Kumara Swamy, A/25 years, SC Mala, pedapeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

10) Mulla Ravi Raju, S/o Sundra Rao, A/31 years, SC Mala, Jamindharpeta, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

11) Degala Venkata Lokesh, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/25 years, Jamindharpeta, SC Mala, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

12) Jogi Babju S/o Lakshmana Sawamy, 56 yrs, Settibalija, Main Road, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

13) Bonthu Jagadish Kumar S/o Satyanarayana, A/30 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

14) Bonthu Satyanarayana S/o Suryanarayana, A/36 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

15) Bonthu Bala Naga Prasad S/o Subbarao, A/41 years, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal. 16.Kudipudi Jnana Venkata Prasad s/O Rama Rao, A/19yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal. 17.Bonthu Srinu S/oRamakrishna, A/42 yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

18. Kudipudi Balaraju S/o Suryanarayana, A/58yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

19. Mattaparthi Srinivas s/O Durga Rao, A/ 30 yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal. 20.Guthula Venkata Ramana S/o Pillamsetti, A/ 25yrs, Settibalija, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

21. Kudipudi Mohan Lova Ramesh S/o Ramagovinda Raju, A/ 27yrs, Settibalija, Sanaboyinavaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

22. Kudipudi Babji S/o Narasimha Murthy, A/ 29yrs, Settibalija, Jogivaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli mandal.

23. Bonthu Ramesh S/o Suryaarao, A/42yrs, Settibalija, near Panchayathi Office Bonthuvaripalem, Nedunuru village, Ainavilli Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Sections 332 and 353 read with 149 of I.P.C.

C.C.No.650/2021 PCJ-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP.

-12-

Finding: Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 23 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 23 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 read with Section 149 of the IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands canceled after appeal time is over. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : A.Himabindu, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Thursday , this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

C.C.NO. 117 /2020

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluka Police Station. … Complainant.

And: Korukonda Ganesh S/o Satyanarayana, A/21 years, Kodurupadu village, Allavaram mandal.

1)Muthabathula Rajesh S/o Srinivasa Rao, @ Srinu, 17 years, Kodurupadu village, Allavaram mandal.

2) Korukonda Sanjay Reddy @ Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o China Sathibabu, 17 years, Koduruopadu village, Allavaram mandal.

3) Kalagata Pavan Srinivasa @ Pavan S/o Rambabu, 17 years, Kodurupadu village, Allavaram mandal.

1) Muthabathula Rajesh, 2) Korukonda Sanjay Reddy @ Sanjeeva Reddy, and 3) Kalagata Pavan Srinivasa @ Pavan are Child in Conflict with law … Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch. Pattabhi Rama Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Crime No.147/2017of Amalapuram Taluka Police

Station registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 447, 324 and , 506 of the IPC on the basis of report of PW.1.

2.PW.7, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station, laid the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 447, 324, 506 and 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused with the following averments:

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 2

3. On 20.11.2017 at about 11.00 Hours, when the L.W.2 asked the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 about the abusing of L.W.3, they beat him with a brick piece. Then, the L.W.2 got treatment to the injuries with a RMP Doctor/L.W.11 Shaik

Mastan. On the same day evening at about 19.00 Hours, the accused Korukonda

Ganesh along with the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 entered into the house premises of L.W.1, disputed with L.W.2 and beat him with hands. Then, when the L.W.1 interfered and tried to pacify them, the accused korukonda Ganesh and the

Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 attacked on him with sticks threatened the

L.Ws 1 and 2 with dire consequences on the point of death, the accused Korukonda

Ganesh beat the L.W.1 with a stick on his Head and caused a bleeding injury on his

Jhead. The Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 beat him with hands and kicked him with legs and caused him a contusion injury on the right shoulder, a bleeding injury on the lower lip. Later, the L.W.2 and other villagers shifted the injured/L.W.1 on a motorcycle and admitted him in Area Hospital, Amalapuram for getting treatment. The Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 also beat the L.Ws 2, 5 and 6 when they tried to rescue the L.W.1, with hands and caused them injuries. As they have sustained minor injuries, they were not admitted in the Hospital for getting treatment.

4. On 20.11.2017 at 22.30 Hours, on the strength of hospital intimation and statement of complainant/ L.W.1, a case in Cr.No.147/2017 U/S.341, 447, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC & Sec.11Ii)(iv)r/w 12 of POCSO Act’2012 has been registered by L.W.17

M.Gajendra Kumar, Sub -Inpsector of Police, Amalapuram Taluka PS and due investigation was conducted by him.

5. During the course of investigation, on 21.11.2017, L.W.17 got recorded the statement of victim minor girl/L.W.3 with WPC.4426/L.W.4 as per the provisions of

POCSO Act’2012, he examined the L.Ws.1,2 & 4 and recorded their detailed

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 3 statements at Police Station, then L.W.17 visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene of offence with two mediators ie., L.W.13 Kusuma Chandra Sekhar, VRO,

Immdivarappadu and L.W.14 Manda Geddayya, Sarpanch, Immidivarappadu from 11.00 hours to 12.00 Hours, got drafted an observation report with the mediators, seized the crime weapon ie., stick used by the accused Korukonda Ganesh under the cover of mediators report and prepared a rough sketch. Then, L.W.17 also examined and recorded the detailed statements of witnesses/L.Ws 5 to 11 .

6. On the requisition given by the L.W.17 and according to the orders issued by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram vide Dis.No.99, Dted 21.02.2018, L.W.16 Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, who is the Hon’ble J.F.C.Magistrate,

Kothapeta has recorded the statement of victim minor girl/L.W.3 u/s 164 Cr.P.C on 09.03.2018.

7. On 14.06.2018 L.W.17 obtained the Study cum Date of Birth Certificates of victim minor girl/L.W.3 and the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 from L.W.12

Sanaboyina Yedukondalu, Gazetted Head Master, ZPP High School, Kodurupadu, also

L.W.17 recorded the detailed statement of L.W.12 .

8. On 16.11.2018, L.W.17 arrested the accused Korukonda Ganesh near his house and sent him for Judicial Custody.

9. On the same day, ie., 16.11.2018 L.W.17 also taken the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 in to custody and produced them before the Hon’ble III AJFCM

Court/ Juvenile Court, Rajamahendravaram for forwarding them to the

Juvenile/Observation Home. A separate charge sheet is being filed against the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 in the Hon’ble III AJFCM Court/Juvenile Court,

Rajamahendravaram.

10. L.W.15 Dr.R.Supriya, CAS, Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Amalapuram, who treated the injured/L.W.1, issued wound certificate by opining that “It is a simple

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 4 injury”.

11.In this case, the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3 are used to waylaid the victim minor girl/L.W.3 while she is proceedign to School on the way and they used to abusenher since about 3 months. On 20.11.2017 at about 19.00 Hours the accused Korukonda Ganesh along with the J-1 to J-3 entered into the premises of house of L.W.1, basing on the dispute occurred in the morning at about 11.00 Hours in between the L.W.2 and J-1 to J-3, disputed with the L.W.2, at that time, when the

L.W.1 interfered, the accused Korukonda Ganesh beat him with a stick on his head, caused him a bleeding head injury. The J-1 to J-3 beat the L.W.1 with their hands and kicked him with legs, caused him injuries. The J-1 to J-3 also beat the L.W.2,

L.Ws 5 and 6, when they tried to rescue the L.W.1 with hands and caused them minor injuries. Hence, no offence punishable u/S. 11(i)(iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 was proved against the accused Korukonda Ganesh.

12.The accused Korukonda Ganesh only entered into the premises of house of

L.W.1 along with the Childs in conflict with law ie., J-1 to J-3, beat the L.W.1 with a stick, caused him bleeding head injury by threatening the L.Ws 1 and 2 with dire consequences basing on the earlier incident ie., harassment caused by the Childs in conflict with law/J-1 to J-3 on the victim minor girl/L,.W.3 and the dispute occurred in between the L.W.2 and Childs in conflict with law/J-1 to J-3. Thus the complicity of the accused Korukonda Ganesh is established for the offences under Sections 447, 324, 506 IPC.

13. This case was taken on cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 447, and 324 of IPC against Korukonda Ganesh .

14. On appearance of the accused case copies of the documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 5

15. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 324 of IPC substance of acquisition have been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

16. During the course of trail the prosecution examined P.Ws 1to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.A.1 to P.10 on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of L.W.12, 14, 16 were given up by the learned APP. On behlaf of the defence no oral or documentary evidence was choosed to adduced.

17. After completion of prosecution side evidence accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his side.

18. Heard arguments on both sides.

19. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 324 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

20. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 10 and Exs P.1 to P.10

21. The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.Ws 11, 12, 13 coupled with Exs P.1 to P.10 supported the case of prosecution and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence requested to punish the accused according to law.

22. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.Ws 11, 12, 13 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.10 are not at all sufficient to prove the case against the accused and the evidence of prosecution

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 6 witnesses suffered with several contradictions, omissions and some of the prosecution witnesses are turned hostile. Further argued that accused was falsely and intentionally implicated in this case by the prosecution and the prosecution is failed to established the accused was committed the offence as alleged by them.

23.During the course of trail, to prove their case prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW.1, who is none other than victim in this case. Pw1 deposed in his evidence that on 20.11.2017 at about 11.11 am LW2 went to the school to meet Head master I.e LW13 and complain the acts of the juveniles ,where his sister i.e pw3 was studying , but Lw13 was not present in the school . Lw2/pw2 questioned the juveniles then they were beat the

LW2 and he was treated by LW12. Further PW1 stated that on the same day at about 6:00 pm while himself and his son , daughter, wife and mother were presented in the house. By that time accused came to pw1 house and pw2 and accused were disputing the each other , then pw1 tried to separate them but accused beat the pw1 with stick on his head and right shoulder and mouth.

24. In his cross examination pw1 admitted that accused never teased

the pw3 and the alleged incident was happened at 6.00pm is in

continuation of the incident took place in the school. Further, Pw1 clearly

stated that accused beat him with stick on his head in this point there no

contradiction from other witnesses . To prove the same prosecution

examined the other witnesses I.e Pws 2 to 5 who were presented at the time

of alleged incident . Though PW2 to 5 who are the relatives of the pw1 ,

their evidence did not take away because of interested witness but they are

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 7

direct witness at the time of alleged offence. Later there are some

suggestions in his cross examination and the same were denied by the

PW1.

25. As seen the entire evidence of Pws 2 to 5 came to know clearly

that this accused was beat the pw1 with stick and the said stick was

marked on prosecution side as MO1.

26. Further, as seen the evidence of pw6 ,he deposed in his evidence that

juveniles were followed and teasing the pw3,i.e who is the sister of pw2, on

that he went to pw3 school . Later he was not supported the case of the

prosecution but his earlier statement was marked as ExP2. Though pw6

did not supported the case of the prosecution fully, some extent what he

deposed is truth and there is a corroboration with the evidence of pws 1 to

5 regarding said incident and injuries,

27. As seen the evidence of Pw7to 10 there is no corroboration with the

evidence of pws 1to 5. Further the evidence of pw11 shows that he went to

the scene of offence along with the Lw17, there they seized the MO1 and

drafted the ExP5 by him on dictation of Lw17. In this aspect accused

counsel raised objection at the time of argument that on the dictation of

Lw17 , Pw11 drafted the ExP5 so there is no validity on ExP5 in the eye of

law. Here , we look into material aspect that whether the accused used the

stick by the time of offence or not than who wrote and who seized . If

believe the version of defence they did not choose to disproved that said

MO1 is not used by the accused.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 8

28. Later, Pw12 evidence clearly shows that she examined the Pw1 on

20.11.2017 and found the injuries in Pw1 body and issued ExP6.

29. Therefore, on over all consideration of the oral, documentary

evidence in the record at best the evidence on record is sufficient to prove

that the accused was beat PW.1 at in his house which is an offence such

offence is punishable under Section 447 and 324 of IPC.

30. So in the light of the above discussion, the evidence of prosecution

witnesses are found to be truthful in regard to accused beat PW1 in his

house and no reasons to disbelieve their evidence and to believe that the

accused was falsely implicated in this case. The discrepancies raised by

the learned defense Counsel are minor in nature. They do not go in to

the root of the prosecution case and therefore it need not be given much

importance to them.

31. In view of the above discussion the prosecution established the

offence punishable under section 447 and 324 of IPC against accused.

Typed to my dictation to the typist, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April , 2025.

Sd/- A.Himabindu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

32.When the accused asked about the quantum of punishment is to

be imposed against him. Accused submitted that his family depends

upon him. Further, submitted that if he is convicted in this case and

sent to Jail, his family members would suffer immensely and requested

the court to take lenient view in imposing sentence.

33. Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and

its gravity, this court is not inclined to invoke beneficial provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. However, keeping

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 9

in view of the plea made by the accused, the age of the accused and

more particularly considering the fact that under which circumstances

the accused was committed the offence and family back ground of the

accused and injured, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to

take lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently.

34. The punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under 447 of

IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend

to three months , or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees

or with both and for section 324 of IPC is imprisonment of either

description for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or

with both.

35. In the result, accused found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 447 and 324 of IPC. He is convicted Under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

hence accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 447of IPC and Rs.2000/- for the offence under section 324 and in case of default in payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Accused informed about right of appeal before Appellate Court and also informed about his right to get free legal aid from Hon’ble chairman, DLSC,

Rajamahendravaram. Office is here by directed to give free copy of Judgment to accused.

Typed to my dictation to the typist, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April , 2025.

Sd/- A.Himabindu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 10

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Devadasu Srinivasa RaoNone PW.2: Devadasu Suresh PW.3: Devadasu Daiva Krupa PW.4: Devadasu Varalakshmi @ Jyothi PW.5: Devadasu Papayamma PW.6: Goda Srinivasa Rao PW.7: Koppula Satyaveni

P.W.8: Shaik Mastan

PW.9: Ch. Veera Raghava

PW.10: Katru Venkata Ramana

PW.11: K.Chandra Sekhar

P.W12: Dr. Supriya

P.W.13: M.Gajendra Kumar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Statement. Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw6 Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: marked portion of 161 statement of pw10 Ex.P.5: Scene observation Report Ex.P.6: Wound Certificate of pw1 Ex.P.7: MLC IntimationNil Ex.P.8: First Information Report Ex.P.9: Rough Sketch Ex.P.10: sec 164 Statement of pw3

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 Stick

Sd/- A.Himabindu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 11

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence PW.1: Devadasu Srinivasa Rao None PW.2: Devadasu Suresh PW.3: Devadasu Daiva Krupa PW.4: Devadasu Varalakshmi @ Jyothi PW.5: Devadasu Papayamma PW.6: Goda Srinivasa Rao PW.7: Koppula Satyaveni P.W.8: Shaik Mastan PW.9: Ch. Veera Raghava PW.10: Katru Venkata Ramana PW.11: K.Chandra Sekhar P.W12: Dr. Supriya P.W.13: M.Gajendra Kumar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P.1: Statement. Nil Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw6 Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: marked portion of 161 statement of pw10 Ex.P.5: Scene observation Report Ex.P.6: Wound Certificate of pw1 Ex.P.7: MLC Intimation Ex.P.8: First Information Report Ex.P.9: Rough Sketch Ex.P.10: sec 164 Statement of pw3

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 Stick

Sd/- A.Himabindu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

C.C.No.117/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC COURT, AMP. 12

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM.

Present : Sri V.Gowri Sankara Rao, Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram.

Friday, this the 6th day of December, 2024.

O.S.NO.71/2020

Between Kumpatla Nagarjuna, Son of Satyanarayana, Door No.2-6, Age 34 years, Business, Edarapalli, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Shaik Vali, Son of Shaik Malki Mohammed, Door No.3-103, Age 53 years, Business, near Manchineela Cheruvu Gattu, Allavaram Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. …Defendant.

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 22.11.2024 in the presence of Sri G.V.V.S.N.Gupthaa,Advocate for the plaintiff, and the defendant having remained ex parte and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is instituted by the plaintiff basing on the registered unpossessory mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, seeking the following reliefs, namely, 1) to grant a preliminary decree for recovery of the suit claim of Rs.5,50,386/- together with costs thereof and subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum which is the contractual rate by granting appropriate time for redemption if the defendant fails to pay the amount as directed by the Court; 2) on failure to do so, to grant a final decree for the amount so granted by the Court along with subsequent interest and costs, by bringing the plaint schedule properties to sale; 3) to further grant a decree against the other movable and immovable properties if any belonging to the defendant if the suit claim is not satisfied from the plaint schedule properties; 4) to grant a personal decree against the defendant if the mortgaged property and other properties belonging to the defendant are not sufficient to satisfy the

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

2 decree so passed; and 5) to grant costs of the suit and subsequent interest from the date of the suit till the date of realisation at the contractual rate.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015 for his family necessities and for business investments agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a registered mortgage deed dated 27.05.2017 (sic ‘26.05.2015’); and that as per the terms and conditions of the said mortgage deed, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be paid in four yearly instalments, and the due dates for repayment of the principal amount is 25.05.2016, 25.05.2017, 25.05.2018 and 25.05.2019; and that the defendant agreed for payment of the entire interest accrued by 25.05.2016 along with Rs.50,000/- of the mortgage amount as the first instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay out of the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2017 of the mortgage amount as the second instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay out of the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2018 of the mortgage amount as the third instalment, and the defendant agreed to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued by 25.05.2019, and the defendant agreed to pay the amount with compound interest with yearly rests; and that the defendants further agreed that for the realisation of the said amount, the defendant executed the said mortgage deed, and if he failed to pay the amount due under the said mortgage deed by the date of instalments, the plaintiff is having right to recover the entire amount without waiting for subsequent instalments, and the plaintiff is having right to recover the same from the properties mortgaged by the defendant and also other movable and immovable properties of the defendant; and that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the mortgaged properties, and the defendant received the consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015, and the defendant signed and got registered the mortgage deed

dated 16.05.2015 (sic ‘26.05.2015’) vide document No.3058/2015 and handed

over the same to the plaintiff; and that the defendant failed to pay the first

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

3 instalment of Rs.50,000/- with interest by 25.05.2016, and the defendant did not pay single instalment out of the said four instalments; and that the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant to pay the entire amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- with yearly compound interest as per the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed on 20.12.2017, and the defendant received it on 21.12.2017, and again the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant on 09.08.2018, and the defendant received it on 11.08.2018, and again the plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 21.02.2019, and the defendant received it on 27.02.2019 and kept quiet, and the defendant did not choose to pay any amount therefor and he did not prefer to given any reply thereto; and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the contractual rate, and debt relief laws have no application to the defendant. Hence, the present suit.

3.On the contrary, the defendant filed a written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint on the ground that the same are not true, valid and binding on him. It is averred therein that the present suit itself is not maintainable under law, and it stood for legal scrutiny, and there was no debtor and creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant never borrowed the amount and mortgaged the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time; and that the defendant has no interest and title over the plaint schedule properties as his name was mentioned as benami in the said registered sale deed as all the joint family members purchased the plaint schedule properties from out of the joint family funds and mentioned his name as a manager of the family; and that there was no consideration in the said mortgage deed, and the attestors and the scribe are the henchmen of the plaintiff, and there was no need or necessity for the defendant to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, as the defendant is having sufficient means to maintain his family members; and that the purpose mentioned in the plaint that the defendant borrowed the amount for his business purpose but the defendant did not do any business, which clearly showed the

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

4 falsity of the case of the plaintiff. It is thus prayed for dismissal of the present suit with exemplary costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial:

1) Whether the registered mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

5.It may be mentioned here that after PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff, and the present suit is coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant on 07.05.2024, 09.05.2024, 28.06.2024, 08.07.2024, 16.07.2024, 24.09.2024, 30.09.2024, 29.10.2024 and 11.11.2024, when the defendant was called absent before the Court during the call work in the morning session and the learned counsel for the defendant reported no instructions from his client on the ground that his client was not responding to his calls in order to proceed further with the matter, and therefore he requested the Court to take next step in the matter. Hence, the matter was passed over and it was again called at 12.30 P.M., 01.30 P.M., 03.30 P.M. and 04.30 P.M. but yet again the defendant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf before the Court from any other quarter. Not only that, as can be seen from the record it was clear that the present suit was coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant from 07.05.2024 onwards but since then the defendant was not present before the Court and thereby he was not reporting readiness to proceed with the matter. Thus, it appeared that the defendant was not interested to prosecute this case vigilantly and diligently anymore according to law, for the reasons best known to him. That is how, the defendant came to be set ex parte on 11.11.2024 and it was posted for arguments to 22.11.2024.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

5

ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:

7.As can be seen from the material available on record, it is obvious that the plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination and is thus examined-in-chief as PW.1, who reiterated almost his plaint averments and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on his behalf. Ex.A.1 is the registered mortgage deed

dated 26.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.A.2 is

the registered sale deed dated 16.05.2015 standing in the name of the defendant; Ex.A.3 is the office copy of the registered notice dated 20.12.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; Ex.A.4 is the postal receipt dated 20.12.2017 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.5 is the postal acknowledgement received from the defendant; Ex.A.6 is the office copy of the registered notice

dated 09.08.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; Ex.A.7 is the postal

receipt dated 09.08.2018 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.8 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant; Ex.A.9 is the office copy of the registered notice dated 21.02.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; and Ex.A.10 is the postal acknowledgement received from the defendant. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 by the learned counsel for the defendant, he reported cross-examination of PW.1 as ‘nil’.

8.PW.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 mortgage deed, filed his evidence affidavit supporting the case of the plaintiff and he was examined-in-chief as such. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2 by the learned counsel for the defendant, again he reported cross-examination of PW.2 as ‘nil’. Thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported no further evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Then the present suit was coming up for evidence on the side of the defendant. As narrated hereinabove in detail, the defendant came to be set ex parte on 11.11.2024.

9.At this stage it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court rendered in THAKKAR VRAJLAL BHIMJEE v. THAKKAR JAMNADAS

VALJEE [(1994) 4 SCC 723] wherein while considering the question as to

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

6 whether the mortgage deed was proved in accordance with law or not, it was held illuminatingly held thus:

“3. In Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh v. Thakur Behari Singh, it has been held that one of the essentials of mortgage deed is that each of the attesting witnesses must have signed the document in the presence of the executant. The Court held that if the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Registration Act and Sections 3 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and read together, there was no escape from the conclusion that a mortgage deed was required to be proved by producing at least one of the attesting witnesses. In view of this decision the judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld. …......”

From a perusal of the said Judgment, it is crystal clear that for proving the mortgage deed at least one of the attesting witnesses is also required to be examined before the Court.

10.That being so, it is also imperative to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court rendered in ISHWAR DASS JAIN (DEAD) Thr. LRs. v. SHONA

LAL (DEAD) By Lrs. (AIR 2000 SC 426) wherein while considering the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it was held inter alia thus:

“Under Section 68, if the execution of a document required to be attested is to be proved, it will be necessary to call an attesting witness, if alive and subject to the process of Court and is capable of giving evidence. But in case the document is registered - then except in the case of a will - it is not necessary to call an attesting witness, unless the execution has been specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. This is clear from Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

……...

……… In fact, in his evidence as DW2 the defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage. It must therefore be taken that there was no specific denial of execution. Hence it was not necessary for the plaintiff to

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

7 call the attestor into the witness box, this not being a will. The plaintiff could therefore not be faulted for not examining any of the attestors.

Hence the mortgage stood proved by the certified copy. The Courts below were right in accepting that the deed was proved. Point 2 is decided in favour of plaintiffs-appellants.”

Keeping the said settled law in mind and looking at the facts of the case at hand, it is manifest that Ex.A.1 is the registered unpossessory mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015. Not only that, initially the defendant engaged a counsel, filed his written statement, participated in the trial upto the stage of examination of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff, and later he remained ex parte for the reasons best known to him, as discussed hereinabove, it must be construed that the defendant admitted the execution of the said registered mortgage deed, and in such an event it must also be construed that there was no specific denial of the execution of the said registered mortgage deed. In that view of the matter, non-examination of one of the attestors of the said registered mortgage deed is not at all fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

11.That apart, the defendant was set ex parte as stated above in detail. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff as PWs.1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.05.2015 by executing Ex.A.1 registered unpossessory mortgage deed in respect of the mortgaged properties, and thereafter he failed to repay the same. Furthermore, prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff also got issued Exs.A.3, A.6 and A.9 legal notices to the defendant, who received it vide Exs.A.5, A.8 and A.10 postal acknowledgements, and kept mum for the reasons best known to him. Thus, the said evidence of PWs.1 and 2 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted as the defendant did not prefer to disprove the claim of the plaintiff by adducing cogent and convincing evidence before the Court. Not only that, the defendant did not choose to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2 for the reasons best known to him. Thus, there is no other material available on record to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In the light of the discussion made herein

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

8

before and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of

the humble and considered view that this suit is liable to be decreed with costs, but as the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is some what excessive and exorbitant in view of the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff for the purpose of family necessities and for business investment, this

Court feels that the rate of interest may be scaled down from 24% per annum to 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree.

Issue Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

12.In the result, the suit is decreed to the extent indicated above with costs by granting preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,386/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand three hundred and eighty six only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). Three months time is granted for redemption. Any failure thereto by the defendant, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the plaint schedule properties by way of final decree by following the due process of law.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW.1: Kumpatla Nagarjuna.None

PW.2: Venuthurupalli Venkata Subbarao.

O.S.NO.71/2020 PCJ(JD)-CUM-JMFC, AMP.

9

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A.1: Registered mortgage deed dated 26.05.2015Nil executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Registered sale deed dated 16.05.2015 standing in the name of the defendant. Ex.A.3: Office copy of the registered notice dated 20.12.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.4: Postal receipt dated 20.12.2017 addressed to the defendant. Ex.A.5: Postal acknowledgement received from the defendant Ex.A.6: Office copy of the registered notice dated 09.08.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A.7: Postal receipt dated 09.08.2018 addressed to the defendant; Ex.A.8: Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant Ex.A.9: Office copy of the registered notice dated 21.02.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex.A.10: Postal acknowledgement received from the defendant.

Sd/- V.Gowri Sankara Rao

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Amalapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

AMALAPURAM

Present : Ms.A.Hima Bindu, Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) -cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram

Thursday, this the 16th day of January, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.71/2024 Between:

The state represented by The Station House officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Amalapuram. … Complainant

And

Lanke Naga Babu, S/o. Dhana Raju, Age 45 years, Resident of N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 09.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N.Venkanna, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement

Bureau Station, Amalapuram filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.278/2021 for the offence under section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- On 09.10.2021 at about 07.00

P.M. the Station House officer, S.E.B.Station, Amalapuram (L.W.1), While conducting patrolling at N.kothapalli Village of Uppalaguptam mandal limits for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences along with LW 2 found the accused carrying a white plastic bag in his right hand at near sandy market situated in

N.kothapalli Village of Uppalaguptam mandal limits. On seeing the raid party in uniforms, the accused perturbed and try to escape from the scene of offence.

On suspicion L.W.1, detained him with the help of the staff. On questioning the accused, in the presence of the staff, revealed that the bag contained liquor bottles. Deputed one of the staff members to bring mediators he returned back and stated that nobody came forwarded to act as mediators. On verification the said bag found (1). Bombay Deluxe Grape Brandy 180 ml size-03 liquor bottles.

(2) Green Stone Indian premium Brandy 180 ml size-03 liquor bottles. Grand total. 06 each 180 ml liquor bottles, tarred with Adhesive Excise Labels, When examined the bottles, printed as For sale in Puducherry state only. Hence the said bottle are treated as non duty paid Indian made liquor bottles. On interrogation the accused, stated that he purchased the said liquor bottles at

Yanam villge of Puducherry state, for clandestine sale purpose and sell them at higher rate for his livelihood. L.W1, ascertained the address particulars, and source of supply of liquor bottles. The L.W.1 explained him that possession, transportation, selling of N.D.P.L. bottles is an offence under A.P. Excise Act, and arrested the accused and seized the property. L.W.1 drawn one bottle from each brand as sample, sealed the bottles and affixed identity slips duly signed by the

L.W's and the accused under the cover of the special report drafted on the spot as no mediators are secured. LW.1 returned to the station along with case property and, on 09.10.2021 at about 9.15 P.M and registered the case as F.I.R.

in Cr.no.278/2021 U/S 34 (a) 9 (1) of AP. Excise Act.2020 and the accused was produced before the in the Hon'ble Magistrate, A.J.F.C.M. Court, Amalapuram on 10.10.2021 for Judicial remand, Later the accused was released bail. The

L.W.1 send the sample bottles to the Government Chemical Examiner of

Prohibition and Excise, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis, under the cover of letter of advice through the Assistant

Enforcement Superintendent, Amalapuram, E.G.Dist. The Chemical Examiner who analysed the sample opined in his C.E.No.3213/2021 dated 27.12.2021

That "the samples at Sl.No.52435 and 52436 are "Indian Made Liquor" The remaining property proposals for destruction was submitted to the Deputy

Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Vijayawada, under section 46 (1) of A.P. Excise. Amendment Act 2020 for confiscation to the state. Vide R.C. No.

1300/2022/C/dt 20.05.2022 of The Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Vijayawada, the property was destroyed under the cover of the mediator's report on 04.07.2022. After completion of investigation, L.W.1 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. This court took the cognizance against the accused for offence punishable under section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On 03.01.2025 accused was examined under section 239 Criminal

Procedure Code, for which he denied the offence. Hence, the charge under section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the accused has been tried for the said charge.

6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.Os.1 and 2 got marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

8. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of (1). Bombay Deluxe Grape Brandy 180 ml size-03 liquor bottles. (2) Green

Stone Indian premium Brandy 180 ml size-03 liquor bottles. Grand total. 06 each 180 ml liquor bottles that the contra band was seized under cover of Ex.P.1

Special report.

10.P.W.1-Enforcement Inspector deposed in his chief examination that in this case on 09.10.2021 at 07.10 pm himself along with LW.2 while conducting patrolling at N. Kothapalli Vilalge of Upplaguptham Mandal. When they reached to the santha market, on seeing them one person i.e,, accused escaped from that place but they caught hold him. Further on his enquiry he confessed that he is having liquor bottles and the same was purchased from the Yanam for selling the same at higher price. On that he opened the bag belongs to the accused and found 1)Bombay Deluxe Grape Brandy 180ml-03 bottles, 21 Green Stone

Indian Premium Brandy 180 ml-03 bottles. Total-06 bottles. He informed him without having a permission from concern authorities is an offence. He try to secure the presence of the mediators but in vain. Later he seized the 6 above said bottles from the possession of the accused. He lifted each bottle from the above said Brandy for analysis purpose. Further, he drafted special report in the seen of offence and arrested the accused and brought to the police station along with the seized property. Ex.P1 is the special Report. He registered FIR in

Cr.No.278/2021 under Section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act and send the accused Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. Ex.P2 is the FIR. On 09.10.2021 he send the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis report under letter of advice. Ex.P3 is the letter of advice. On 22.01.2022 he received chemical analysis report, analyst opined that sample bottles are Indian made liquor. M.Os 1 and 2 are the sample bottles. Ex.P.4 is the chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet.

11.P.W.2-Excise Constable deposed that on 09.10.2021 at about 07:00 PM.

himself along with PW.1 proceeded to the Santha Market, N Kothpalli Village

There they noticed accused is having in his right hand one plastic bag. On seeing them he tried to escape form that place. But they caught hold the accused, PW.1 deputed him to secure any independent person. As such he went to the Village but no one is available at that time and the same is Informed the PW.1. Later PW.1 in his presence open the said bag and found 6 brandy bottles 180ml in size i.e. 1) Bombay Deluxe Grape brandy 180ml-3 bottles, 2)Green Stone Indian Premium 180Ml-3 bottles. Total - 6 bottles. On the equiry of PW.1 accused disclosed his name as Lankey Nagababu. S/o. Dhanaraju, resident of N.Kothapalli. Further accused confessed before them he purchased said liquor bottle from Yanam liquor bottles shops for selling purpose P.W.1 lifted one bottle as a sample from each brand and the remaining were seized. Later

PW.1 is arrested the accused and drafted Special Report 1.e., Ex.P1 report.

Himself and PW.1 and the accused signed on the Ex. PI report.

12.P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not record the statement of LW.2. He did not prepared any rough sketch at the scene of offence. The alleged scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. He did not examined any independent witnesses in this case. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any ride in this case and filed a case against the accused for the statistical purpose.

13. It has been admitted by P.W.2 in his cross examination that he did not give any name to the PW.1 those who were refused to act as a mediator.

Alleged scene of offence is a busy locality. There is a VRO and Panchayat secretary in N.Kothapalli village. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false accused is noway connected this case. Thus, it manifests from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the mandatory requirements under Section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code has not been complied with, in securing two or more respectable and independent persons of the locality to act as mediators for the search and seizure of the contra band. In these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. Thus, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused person is entitled for an acquittal.

14.Though the P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that accused confessed that he was in possession of liquor bottles but as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act "no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence. Further, the investigation officer also failed to examine the other independent person or owner of alleged shop where the accused persons allegedly purchased or not. In the present case, except the evidence

P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the police officials no independent witnesses were present at the time of preparing of Ex.P.1 hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not sufficient to prove that the accused is in possession of alleged liquor bottles, for convict them. At the same time they are failed to explain who is the owner of the alleged motor vehicle.

15.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court inclined to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge under

Section 34(A) r/w 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 34(A) r/w 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of January, 2025.

Sd/-A.Hima Bindu

Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) -cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class,Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1/03.01.2025: Vegesana Siva Rama Raju P.W.2/08.01.2025: V.Srinivas

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Special report Ex.P.2: First Information report Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P.4: Chemical analysis report

For Defence: Nil

M.Os. Marked

M.O.1: Sample bottle of Bombay deluxe grape brandy M.O.2: Sample bottle of Green stone Indian Premium brandy

Sd/-A.Hima Bindu

Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) -cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class,Amalapuram.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Ms.A.Hima Bindu, Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) -cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Amalapuram

CALENDAR CASE No.71/2024

Date of Offence:09.10.2021

Date of Report :09.10.2021

Date of arrest of Accused :10.10.2021

Date of commencement of :03.01.2025 Trial

Date of close of Trial:08.01.2025

Date of sentence or order:16.01.2025

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by The Station House officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Amalapuram.

Name of the accused:Lanke Naga Babu, S/o. Dhana Raju, Age 45 years, Resident of N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

Offence:under Section 34(a) r/w 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020

Plea of Accused:Not guilty

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 34(A) r/w 9(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 and is acquitted under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure

Code. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Sd/-A.Hima Bindu

Addl. Civil Judge, (Junior Division) -cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the

First Class,Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.