Smt.A.Kanchana Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated, this the 31st day of August, 2015

Present: Smt. A. Kanchana Reddy, Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.861 of 2012

Between:

The State, represented through Sub Inspector of Police, Nawaboet Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Chakali Raju, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 25 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

2. Chakali Sathyam, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 24 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ:Agril.,

3. Chakali Srinu, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 27 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

4. Chakali Laxmaiah, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 25 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

5. Chakali Gopal, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 28 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Driver.

6. Chakali Shankaraiah, S/o. Pentaiah, age 65 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

All R/o: Chowdur Vg of Nawabpet Mandal.

(The case against A2/Chakali Sathyam and A3/Chakali Srinu is abated in view of filing of death certificates of A2 and A3.)

... Accused

Nature of offence:Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty; Insult intended to breach of the peace with common intention. Section of law:U/Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty Sentence or order: A1, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and A1, A4 to A6 are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time. No property was deposited in the Court in this case. The case against A2/Chakali Sathyam and A3/Chakali Srinu is abated on filing death certificates of A2 and A3.

* * * This case coming up before me for final hearing on 27.08.2015 in the presence of the A.P.P. on behalf of the State and of Sri T. Vijay Bhasker Reddy and Sri S. Srisailam Goud, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

2

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet police station, filed a report against A1 to A6 alleging that the accused have committed an offences punishable

U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.02.2012 at 11.00 p.m., A1 and

A2 caught hold one G. Yadamma and attempted to outrage her modesty as such on 01.03.2012 at 10.00 a.m., above said G. Yadamma visited PS Nawabpet and lodged a complaint. On the contents of the petition LW-1/S. Akram Nawaz Khan registered a case in Cr.No.22/2012, U/Sec.354, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated the case. On the same day i.e., 01.03.2012 at about 2.00 p.m.,

LW-1 along with LW-2/Venkataiah, LW-3/N. Sai Nirmala, LW-4/M. Srinivasulu and victim's husband LW-5/G. Ramulu went to Chowdur village in jeep of LW-6/

Y. Raju for the purpose of investigation and LW-1 while enquiring with LW-7/

K. Yesurathnam about the incident in the mean time A1 to A6 came there abused the police personnels in filthy language and obstructed LWs 1 to 4 while they were discharging their legitimate duties and halted stones on LW-5 in order to beat him. Thus A1 to A6 committed an offence punishable U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC. Case against A2 and A3 is abated as the concerned police filed death certificates of A2 and A3.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the LW-10/K. Pakirappa, Sub-Inspector of police, Nawabpet police station, had registered a case in Cr.No.23/2012 for the offence punishable U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC within the cognizance.

4. Upon perusal of the record, the above charge sheet was taken on file against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. Later on it has been numbered as C.C.No.299/2012 on the file of said court Consequent upon transfer of the crime record to this Court it has been re-numbered as C.C.No.861/2012 on the file of this Court. Case against A2 and A3 is abated as the concerned police filed death certificates of A2 and A3.

3

5. On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., and later on 251 Cr.P.C., examination has been conducted. The substance of accusation, constituting the offences U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC were read over to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs P1 and P6.

7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution the accused were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. The accusation against the accused is U/Sec.353 of IPC in order to fasten the liability of the accused for said offence the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein obstructed LW-1, LW-2 and LW-3 when they being police officials while discharging their duties.

The accusation against the accused is U/Sec.504 r/w 34 of IPC in order to fasten the liability of the accused for said offence the prosecution has to establish that the accused intentionally insulted LWs 1 to 5 with an intend to provoke breach of peace with a knowledge that such provocation will cause to break the public peace with common intention.

The learned APP argued that basing on the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused and sought for conviction. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no corroboration between the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8, and PWs 2, 5 and 6 did not support the case of prosecution, hence sought for acquittal.

4

11.Point:- LW-1/PW-1/S. Akram Nawaz Khan Head Constable deposed that on 01.03.2012 when he was on duty at Nawabpet PS, at about 10.00 a.m., Smt.

G. Yadamma came to police station to lodge a petition stating that on previous day night when she went to attend nature call near her house A1 and A2 tried to rape her then PW-1 informed the same to their SI LW-10 through phone, as per his instructions PW-1 issued FIR in Cr.No.22/2012 U/Sec.354, 323, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC, then referred Yadamma to Government Hospital for examination. Thereafter

PW-1 has been to the village of Yadamma along with LWs 2 to 5 in a jeep which was driven by LW-6. The husband of Yadamma also accompanied them and they picked up LW-7 on the way to Chowdur village, they reached the Grampanchayat and started enquiry regarding the petition lodged by Yadamma then A1 to A6 came to spot and beat husband of Yadamma with stonesand scolded them in unparliamentary languages and obstructed them from conducting their duties.

Then they returned back to their police station and lodged a report with SI. Ex-P1 is the report lodged by them. SI of police issued FIR.

12.During the course of cross-examination PW-1 stated that he do not know whether on 26.01.2012 a case was registered against the husband of

Yadamma and others namely G. Ramulu, Narayana, G. Raju, G. Ravi and

G. Ramesh by A1 stating that they altogether beat A1 and due to the which A1 lost his teeth though he was working in same police station on 26.01.2012. PW-1 further stated that hand writing in Ex-P1 is not of him and he do not know who is the scribe of Ex-P1 and in the said Ex-P1 they have not specifically stated unparliamentary words used by accused and which words used by which accused and in Ex-P1 they have not stated the mode of obstruction made by the accused to them while discharging duties and he do not know whether the husband of

Yadamma namely G. Ramulu whether has been to Hospital for treatment when accused beat him with stones. PW-2 deposed that the jeep in which they have been to Chowdur village is not police jeep they hired a private jeep of LW-6.

13.LW-5/PW-2/G. Ramulu stated to be eye witness deposed that he is resident of Chowdur. He know PW-1, LWs 2 to 4 and all the accused. He do not 5 know regarding the present case. he never witnessed anything regarding this case. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he was examined by police and stated as in Ex-P2 and now deposing false to help the accused.

14.LW-2/PW-3/M. Venkataiah stated to be eye witness and police constable deposed that on 01.03.2012 afternoon hours at 1.00 p.m., he along with PW-1, LWs 3 and 4 proceeded in their jeep to Chowdur village for investigation in Cr.No.22/2012 which is registered U/Sec.354 of IPC against A1 herein and they were examining witnesses at Gram panchayat office while so A1 came to the spot along with A5 and four others and scolded them in unparliamentary language and did not allow them to proceed them with the investigation. Thus obstructed them while discharging their duties. Thereafter they took six of them into their custody and brought them to police station.

LW-10 recorded their statements at police station.

15.During the course of cross-examination PW-3 admitted that he noted the names of six accused in the present case on his palm and at the request of learned counsel for the accused the witness has shown his left palm to the

Court wherein he specifically written the names of six accused. PW-3 further stated that he do not know whether LW-10 was on leave on the said date of incident and on the said date of incident PW-1 was SHO to their station and his 161 Cr.P.C., statement was drafted by their station writer and there is no specific mention regarding the unparliamentary words used by accused and mode of obstruction made by accused in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement, he do not remember whether the accused were arrested on 22.03.2012 but they were not taken along with them to police station on the said date of incident.

16.LW-3/PW-4/M. Sai Nirmala stated to be eye witness and Head

Constable deposed that on 01.03.2012 at 2.00 p.m., she along with PWs 1 and 3 proceeded in private jeep to Chowdur village along with complainant in

Cr.No.22/2012 for investigation which is registered U/Sec.354 against A1 herein and were examining the witnesses in Grampanchayat Office in presence of LW-7 6 while so A1 to A6 came to the spot and scolded PW-1 in unparliamentary language and not allowed them to proceed with investigation, thus obstructed them while discharging their duties and thrown stones on PW-2. They tried to pacify the situation thereafter they returned to police station along with PW-2. Thereafter

LW-10 recorded her statement at police station.

17. During the course of cross-examination PW-4 stated that LW-10 recorded her 161 Cr.P.C., statement at police station and do not know who is the scribe of her 161 Cr.P.C., statement and PW-2 did not sustain any injuries when accused has thrown stones on him and there is no specific mention regarding the unparliamentary words used by accused and mode of obstructions made by accused in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement.

18.LW-8/PW-5/Thirupathaiah and LW-9/PW-6/Raju stated to be panchas for scene of offence panchanama stated that they know one another and about 2 years back police Nawabpet obtained their signatures on white papers without stating reason. Exs P3 and P4 are the signatures of PWs 5 and 6 respectively on crime detail form and no panchanama was conducted by police in their presence.

19.LW-7/PW-7/Yesuratnam stated to be eye witness deposed that he is Kavalkar of Chowdur village since 15 years. He know the accused they are his villagers. During the year 2012 police Nawabpet came to their village with regard to the enquiry inrespect of woman he was at Grampanchayat Office then and has been to lunch by the time he returned to Grampanchayat Office the accused herein were quarrelling with police officials infront of Grampanchayat Office one

Akram Nawaz Khan and other police officials enquiring woman, constables were present and A1 and A5 along with others were quarreling with the said police officials, one of the accused is no more, he died in an accident. PW-7 pacified the situation and separated the police officials and accused and sent them away.

Police examined him and recorded his statements.

20.During the course of cross-examination PW-7 deposed that by the time he reached the scene of offence nearly 20 to 30 members gathered at spot 7 among them Chakali Sathyamma, Byagari Narsaiahand others are present. He cannot give their names and he do not know the reason for quarreling between police officials and accused, on the next day of incident. Police examined him and recorded his statement. He do not know the name of the police officials who recorded his statement.

21.LW-10/PW-8/K. Pakirappa investigating officer deposed that on receipt of Ex-P1 report from PW-1 he registered a case in Cr.No.22/2012,

U/Sec.323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR against A1 to A6 i.e., Ex-P5.

Thereafter recorded the statement of LWs 1 to 7 at police station further proceeded to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of PWs 5 and 6 and drafted crime detail form i.e., Ex-P6 on 22.03.2012 he apprehended A1, A5, A6 at their house and on interrogation they admitted that they committed offence thereafter they were produced before the Court for judicial custody and on 04.04.2012 A2 to A4 surrendered before the Court, after investigation he filed charge sheet.

22.During the course of cross-examination PW-8 admitted that in

Ex-P1 and Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements of LWs 1 to 4 specific unparliamentary words alleged to have been used by accused were not stated by PW-1 and LWs 1 to 4, the nature of obstruction made by accused to the official duties to be performed by LWs 1 to 4 was not specifically stated.

23. Though it is the case of PWs 1, 3 and 4 that when they have been to the Chowdur village for investigation in Cr.No.22/2012 the accused herein attacked them and scolded them in unparliamentary language and obstructed them from conducting their duties. The version of PWs 1, 3 and 4 is not corroborating with one another in many aspects. PW-1 stated that they have picked up LW-7/Pw-7 on the way to Chowdur village but PW-7 stated before the

Court he was at Grampanchayat Office when these people came to their village and further PWs 1, 3 and 4 categorically admitted that they have not stated the unparliamentary words used by accused to them while discharging their official duties and PWs 1 and 4 stated that they have proceeded to Chowdur village in 8 private jeep of LW-6 whereas PW-3 stated that they proceeded to Chowdur village in their jeep and moreover LW-6/Y. Raju is not examined before the Court, one of the eye witness i.e., PW-2 did not support the case of prosecution.

24.The evidence of LW-4/M. Srinivasulu, another eye witness was given up by learned APP. PWs 5 and 6 stated to be panchas for scene of offence did not support the case of prosecution and the only witness left over is PW-7 stated to be eye witness his evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution.

PW-7 stated that he was at Grampanchayat Office when police Nawabpet came to their village in the year 2012 with regard to the enquiry inrespect of woman and he has been to lunch by the time he returned to Grampanchayat Office the accused herein were quarreling with police officials infront of Grmpanchayat Office.

He pacified the situation and separated the police officials and accused and sent them away and he do not know the reason for quarreling between police official and accused and nearly 20 to 30 members gathered at spot. But not even a single person from 20 to 30 members gathered at spot were not examined before the Court and further from the evidence of PW-7 it is clear that some disputes arose between police officials and accused herein but exactly who quarreled with whom and what actually happened was not stated by PW-7, whether A1 to A6 obstructed LWs 1 to 4 while discharging their official duties was not stated by

PW-7.

25.PW-7 further stated that he separated police officials and accused and sent them away from which statement of PW-7 it is not clear to the Court whether the police officials fought with the accused or accused fought with the police officials. On the other hand it is the case of prosecution that in presence

PW-2, PW-7, LW-4 and the six accused scolded PWs 1, 3 and 4 in unparliamentary language and obstructed them while they were discharging their officials duties.

But no evidence has been placed before the Court to show that the accused herein scolded or obstructed the police officials while discharging their duties and the said

Yadamma and her husband G. Ramulu (lodged report in Cr.No.22/2012) were also not examined before the Court. No reason has been assigned for non examination of them before Court which is fatal to the case of prosecution and PW-8 admitted that PWs 1, 3 and 4 has not specifically stated the unparliamentary words used by 9 accused and nature of obstruction made by accused when LWs 1 to 3 were performing their official duties, hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquitted, U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt accordingly acquittal.

26. In the result A1, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and A1, A4 to A6 are acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time.

No property was deposited in the Court in this case. The case against A2/Chakali

Sathyam and A3/Chakali Srinu is abated as concerned police filed death certificates of A2 and A3.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 31st day of August, 2015.

Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court,Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1: S. Akram Nawaz Kahan - None - PW-2: G. Ramulu PW-3: M. Venkataiah PW-4: Smt. Sai Nirmala PW-5: Thirupathaiah PW-6: Raju PW-7: Yesuratnam PW-8: K. Pakirappa

EXHIBITS MARKED

FORPROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex-P1: Complaint -- Nil -- Ex-P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2 Ex-P3: Signature of PW-5 on crime detail form Ex-P4: Signature of PW-6 on crime detail form Ex-P5: First information report Ex-P6: Crime detail form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - Sd/-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court,Mahabubnagar. // True Copy //

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE : MAHABUBNAGAR

TABULAR FORM

Calendar Case Number: 861 of 2012 Name of the Police Station: Nawabpet, Police Station.

Consecutive No.: 23/2012

Section of law: U/Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

Description of the accused:

1. Chakali Raju, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 25 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

2. Chakali Sathyam, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 24 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

3. Chakali Srinu, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 27 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

4. Chakali Laxmaiah, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 25 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril.,

5. Chakali Gopal, S/o. Shankaraiah, age 28 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Driver.

6. Chakali Shankaraiah, S/o. Pentaiah, age 65 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril., All R/o: Chowdur Vg of Nawabpet Mandal.

(The case against A2/Chakali Sathyam and A3/Chakali Srinu is abated in view of death certificates of A2 and A3 filed.)

Date of:

Occurrence: 01-03-2012 Report or complaint: 01-03-2012 Appearance/Apprehension: 22-03-2012 Released of accused : 29-03-2012 Commencement of trial: 12-06-2014 Close of trial: 27-08-2015 Sentence or order: 31-08-2015

In the result A1, A4 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and A1, A4 to A6 are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time. No property was deposited in the Court in this case. The case against A2/Chakali Sathyam and A3/Chakali Srinu is abated as concerned police filed death certificates of A2 and A3.

Explanation for delay : The prosecution failed to produce the witnesses on adjourned dates.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar. To The Hon'ble I Addl.Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Remarks: No property deposited in this Court to pass the order. Dis.No.

1

Decided on : 30-07-2015

IN THE COURT OF

Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar

AT MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

CC/100012/2014 (PROSECUTION): Kasetty Aravind Through Police Station Officer PS Addakal 104 , age 26 years Occu Student R o Kandur village of Addakal mandal

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

Kasetty Aravind VERSUS : Nadindla Mahabub SubhanAge: 0 Occupation : age 42 years Caste Dudekula Occu Driver of innova Car bearing No. AP 04 AH 2349 R o H No 3-249 Sunnapubhatlu Akkaipally post Kadappa Dist.

Offence punishable under : 338,337,IPC of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

ORDER

The defacto complainant/LW.1 and victim persons and accused are present

before the Lok Adalath Bench referring the case to the Lok Adalath Bench for

settlement. It is reported by the defacto complainant that she had settled the dispute with the accused out of Court. The offences alleged are Sec. 338,337 IPC. The said above offences are compoundable as per Sec. 320(1) Cr.P.C. Since the defacto complainant had submitted that he had settled the dispute as such the case is compounded before this Lok Adalath Bench. As a sequel to the settlement made the accused are acquitted U/sec. 320(8) Cr.P.C. Since there is no property deposited in this case, as such there is no order with regard to property. The award is passed accordingly.

Sd/-

Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

P.R.C. No. 32 of 2015

Between:

Kanmanuri Venkataiah Address - Ro.Bokkalonipally vlg of mahabubnagar

... Complainant

A N D

Wadde Laxmaiah Address - Ro.Bokkalonipally vlg mahabubnagar

... Accused

Nature of offence: U/Sec. 366(A),376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec. (L) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, Sec. 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act

D O C K E T O R D E R

Accused is present. Committal Orders pronounced in open court. (VSCO)

The offence under section section 3(2)(v) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 are exclusively triable by the court of Honble Court of Spl. Sessions, Judge, for trial of offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar. In the result, the case of the

Accused is committed to the Honble Court Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-VII Addl.

District and Sessions Court, for SC/ST Cases, Mahabubnagar. Accused is directed to appear before the Honble Court of Spl. Sessions Judge, for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Mahabubnagar on 14-09-2015 at 10.30 A.M. The office directed to forward the entire case records and material objects if any, to the Honble

Court of Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/STs Act, Mahabubnagar, forthwith duly indexed and inform about the committal of the case to the Sr. APP for information.

Sd/-.,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. and Excise Court-cum-II Addl. JCJ, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-SPL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROHIBITION AND

EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

P.R.C. No. 47 of 2015

Between:

SDPO, Mahabubnagar Address - Kum.Tthagili Sudha Rani

... Complainant

A N D

Kavali Shiva Kumar Address - Ro.Heerabaai Nagar Ho.Palkonda village of Mahabubnagar Mandal.

... Accused

Nature of offence: U/Sec. 354,506 of IPC and Sec.31x SC ST POA Act,1989

D O C K E T O R D E R

Accused is present. Committal Orders pronounced in open court.

(VSCO) The offence under section section 3(2)(v) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 are exclusively triable by the court of Honble Court of Spl. Sessions, Judge, for trial of offence under SC/ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar. In the result, the case of the

Accused is committed to the Honble Court Spl. Sessions Judge-cum-VII Addl.

District and Sessions Court, for SC/ST Cases, Mahabubnagar. Accused is directed to appear before the Honble Court of Spl. Sessions Judge, for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Mahabubnagar on 4-09-2015 at 10.30 A.M. The office directed to forward the entire case records and material objects if any, to the Honble

Court of Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/STs Act, Mahabubnagar, forthwith duly indexed and inform about the committal of the case to the Sr. APP for information.

Sd/-.,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. and Excise Court-cum-II Addl. JCJ, Mahabubnagar.

Decided on : 08-08-2015

IN THE COURT OF Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act

cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar

CC/100241/2015

Boya Raju Through Police Station Officer PS Addakal 68 , age 30 years caste Boya Occu Agril R o Molgera village of Boothpur mandal.

MAHABUBNAGAR MAHABOOBNAGAR

Boya Raju VERSUS :Chinnakapu Venkat Reddyage 41 years caste Reddy occu Auto driver R o Dubbapally H o Ponnakal village

Offence punishable under : 338IPC of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

ORDER

Accused is present. He is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C.

and the substances of accusation for the offence under section

337 of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu

language for which, he pleased guilty. The admission of

accused appears to be free and voluntarily. Accordingly,

accused is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees

five hundred only) for the offence punishable U/s. 337 of IPC.

in default of payment of fine amount he shall undergo of one

month.

sd/-

Spl JMFC(Mobile) Crt for trial of cases under PCR Act cum I Adl JCJ, Mahbubnagar